Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Lancashire Electric Power Bill.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill.
Liverpool Exchange Bill.
Wandsworth and District Gas Bill.
Dunstable Gas and Water Bill.
Gosport Water Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Waltham Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Southampton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill {by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (ELECTORAL LAW, NATIVES).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any

proposals have been made for the representation of native interests in the legislature of Southern Rhodesia?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, natives are entitled under the electoral law of Rhodesia to be registered as voters on the same terms as Europeans. No proposal for the separate representation of native interests in the Legislature has been submitted to me by the Southern Rhodesia Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMANY.

2 and 3. Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the recent formation of a company called Compensation Brokers, Limited; and whether, seeing that the activities of this company will infringe or assist in evading the provisions of Standstill and other Agreements between Germany and this country, he will take steps to safeguard British interests;
(2) whether, in view of the importance of securing the payment of overdue commercial debts by banks or traders in Germany to British banks or traders, he will introduce legislation to control the operations of companies having as their object the facilitation of trade between the two countries without making provision for the liquidation of such debts?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I understand that the object of the newly-formed company referred to by the hon. Member is to act as a brokerage concern in regard to barter transactions for the supply of goods from Germany and other European countries with restricted exchanges to parts of the British Empire other than the United Kingdom in exchange for raw materials. The activities of the company will in no way affect the provisions of the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of 1st November, 1934, nor those of the Standstill and other Agreements between Germany and creditors in the United Kingdom, and the promoters undertook to regulate their business in such a way as to safeguard United Kingdom interests and to take steps to ensure that goods supplied under the scheme should not be


such as could be supplied by United Kingdom industries. In the circumstances no action appears to be called for on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Smith: Have the Government approved the policy of this company, and will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to give a definite answer "Yes" or "No"?

Dr. Burgin: I have stated that, as far as I can see, the objects of the company do not in any way conflict with any provisions that the Government have made.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the promoters of this scheme will carry out the undertakings which they have given to his Department?

Dr. Burgin: I have no reason to be other than satisfied so far. I need hardly say that the transactions of a barter character are such as will require, and will secure, constant supervision.

Mr. Bellenger: May not this arrangement affect some of the re-export trade which passes through this country, possibly from our Dominions to Germany?

Dr. Burgin: Not as far as we know at present, but if the hon. Member has any information to the contrary, I shall be glad to receive it.

Mr. Dalton: Is there any safeguard in this arrangement against the supply to Germany of additional materials suitable for making armaments?

Dr. Burgin: I think so.

Mr. Dalton: Is that so?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member has asked a question a long way removed from anything upon the Paper, and I can, obviously, only give the information in my possession. As far as I understand, the material supplied will be raw material, and not of the character to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position as regards the short-term credits owing by Germany to this country; and whether, in view of the £46,000,000 export surplus in Germany's trade balance, steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to remind Germany of this obligation?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to similar questions on 26th January.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the German Government now have power to requisition the funds at the disposal of German citizens abroad, and will he not therefore consider that in the negotiations which are now going on?

Mr. Chamberlain: I think that, if the hon. Member will look at the answer that I gave on the occasion to which I refer, he will see that that matter is covered by that answer.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the possibility in the near future of all the principal film-producing companies in this country passing into American hands; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Dr. Burgin: I have received no information regarding the possibility referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to make some inquiries, because there is a real possibility of the four principal companies in this country passing into American hands?

Dr. Burgin: That is not in accordance with my information.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American films are very much better than the British?

Hon. Members: No.

Dr. Burgin: The Minister is very well informed about the British film industry.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the observations from the trade organisations on the report on the Cinema Films Act; and, in view of the present unsettled state of the cinema industry, will he give particulars of when it is proposed to introduce legislation to amend the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Dr. Burgin: Observations on the report of the Departmental Committee on Films have been received from the various


sections of the industry and are being considered. I understand that further observations may be expected. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to add anything to the answer which I gave on 8th December to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

Mr. Day: Is the Minister aware that the delay in the decision of the Government upon this very urgent matter is causing ruin to many of the British film-producing companies; and will he try to facilitate the decision of the Government?

Dr. Burgin: I am not aware of anything of the sort, but I am aware that the different sections of the film industry have different views on every topic.

Mr. Day: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed lately that many of the film-producing companies have been going into liquidation?

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Major Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade with what countries there are treaties or trade agreements which prevent quantitative restriction of import of eggs and / or increased tariff on imported eggs; the date on which those treaties or trade agreements can be denounced; and whether he is considering such denunciation in all or any cases?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the trade agreements now in force prevent the Government from taking measures to help the poultry industry, either by tariffs or restriction of imports; and whether he proposes to take immediate steps to abolish these agreements?

Dr. Burgin: The imposition of increased import duties on eggs in shell is precluded by the trade agreements with Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden. The agreement with Denmark can be denounced at any time after four months' prior notice, the other agreements after six months' notice. No treaty or trade agreement precludes unconditionally the quantitative regulation of imports of eggs. The position of the poultry industry will receive full consideration during the negotiations for a renewal of these agreements, which it is hoped may take place this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will not the hon. Member immediately take steps to denounce these Agreements?

Major Mills: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he has had any representations from poultry keepers as to their unhappy position, as most Members of Parliament have had; and whether he has been able to reassure them that the Government mean to help them to preserve their industry?

Dr. Burgin: The Department has received a number of representations such as those to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. The whole matter is closely engaging the attention of the Department.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind, in reference to the question of Denmark, that Denmark is one of our best customers for coal, and that some people in the coal areas are in a worse position than the poultry keepers?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the Minister immediately take steps to denounce these Treaties, so that something can be done to help the poultry industry?

Dr. Burgin: I do not think that the right way to negotiate a commercial treaty is to denounce existing treaties. There are other subjects than the importation of eggs which require consideration. The hon. and gallant Member will, perhaps, be satisfied with the assurance that the matter is being very closely considered.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether at any time within the last six months the Government have made any suggestions to those countries normally exporting eggs to Great Britain that their consignments should be reduced; and whether, in that case, he can state the number and nature of the replies received?

Dr. Burgin: No such suggestions have been made within the period named.

Sir G. Fox: asked the President of the Board of Trade the period over which the various nations normally importing eggs into this country agreed voluntarily to restrict their imports; what was the extent of this restriction; and what were the circumstances under which this voluntary effort came to an end?

Dr. Burgin: Up to 30th September, 1934, there was a standstill arrangement on the basis of imports during the corresponding period of 1933. Subsequent arrangements provided for small reductions of varying amounts in total imports, but for the last quarter of 1935 there was a reversion to the standstill arrangement. The requests were not complied with in all cases, and no request was made to foreign countries after the end of 1935, since by that time the Reorganisation Commissions for Eggs and Poultry had reported and had not recommended the introduction of a general system of quantitative regulation of imports of eggs.

Sir G. Fox: Am I to understand that the Department has done nothing for the last 18 months to help the poultry producer? Is the hon. Member aware that many poultry producers are faced with bankruptcy? What measures does he propose to take?

Dr. Burgin: I hope the hon. Member will not understand anything of the kind. What happened was this. An arrangement for voluntary control was made to regulate the market pending a report by the Commission. That Commission having reported, not in the sense which the hon. Member desires, there is nothing further to do for the moment.

Mr. Turton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the result of ending the voluntary restriction has been an increase in the imports of eggs of 6,800,000, and will he consider a renewal of the voluntary restriction in order that this industry may be saved?

Dr. Burgin: That is a matter which, in the first instance, must be addressed to the Minister for Agriculture.

Major Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long the application of the National Farmers' Union and the Poultry Keepers' Association for an increased duty on imported eggs has been before the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and when a report may be expected?

Mr. Touche: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the grave conditions at present existing in the egg and poultry industry, he will consider asking the Import Duties Advisory Committee to expedite the hearing and

determination of the application which has been made to them for an increased duty on foreign imported eggs?

Mr. Chamberlain: The application was lodged on 24th September last. I am not able to say when a conclusion will be reached in the matter, but, in view of the position under certain trade agreements, no action in the way of an increase of duty could become effective for some time to come, and in these circumstances I do not think any useful purpose would be served by taking the action suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche).

Major Mills: Would it not help the Government to make up their minds if they had the advice of the Advisory Committee on this matter?

Sir William Davison: Before my right hon. Friend replies, is it not a fact that the House has repeatedly been told that no action can be taken because of these treaties, and would it not be desirable, in order that these negotiations should take place, that preliminary notice of denunciation should be given?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the promotion of a marketing scheme enable the Government to take steps to restrict the importation of eggs either under the auspices of the reorganisation commission or otherwise?

Mr. Rowson: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take action on imports, can he take the taxes off the feeding-stuffs of these people?

CARPETS.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the export from this country of Oriental carpets originally from Persia, Iraq, China, etc., to Denmark under the same certificate as those of United Kingdom manufacture; whether he is aware that these carpets have only passed through a slight process of washing in this country; that the result of these exports is to reduce the already limited quota allotted for the import of British carpets into Denmark, thus seriously affecting the trade in this country; and what action the Board of Trade is taking in the matter?

Dr. Burgin: The Board of Trade considered a similar question in 1935 in con-


nection with the Anglo-German Payments Agreement and decided that certificates of United Kingdom origin might be issued in respect of Oriental carpets fully processed in the United Kingdom. Such certificates should not be issued in respect of imported carpets which have been merely cleaned in this country. If my hon. Friend will let me have full particulars of cases in which the certificates have been used for carpets which have been only washed in this country, I will look into the matter.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but may I further ask him whether it is really necessary to include these carpets in the quota at all?

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large rivet works at Sunderland has recently been closed down in consequence of the large importation into this country of rivets at prices which cannot economically be equalled in Great Britain under the present policy regarding steel; and whether he will request the Iron and Steel Federation to make arrangements with shipbuilders which will encourage a wider use of British rivets or take other steps to remedy the present difficulties facing the British rivet industry?

Dr. Burgin: I am aware that a rivet works at Sunderland has recently been closed down. As regards the last part of the question, it is open to the British Iron and Steel Federation to negotiate with the shipbuilders, and they will doubtless do so if they consider that any useful purpose will be served.

Mr. Smith: While thanking the hon. Member for the reply, may I ask whether he will do anything to influence the federation to give the same sort of terms to the rivet industry, seeing that so large a proportion of ship-plates are of British make?

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inquire into the working of the international cartel to see how far it is preventing our own industries being kept open by its operation?

Dr. Burgin: I have not the slightest reason for imagining that the operations

of the iron and steel cartel have anything like the effect which the hon. Baronet supposes.

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask whether, in the near future, we shall have a report on the iron and steel trade from the committee which may throw some light on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is far beyond the question on the Order Paper.

Sir P. Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decision to establish steelworks at Scunthorpe and the evidence existing that demand for British steel far exceeds supply, he will recognise the complementary and equally strong claim put forward in support of the steelworks scheme for Jarrow, and take steps to prevent the British Iron and Steel Federation using their powers against the establishment of competitive supplies in Great Britain?

Dr. Burgin: As I said in reply to the hon. Members for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and for the Clayton Division (Mr. Jagger) on 3rd February, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied that the scheme in the Scunthorpe area is in the national interest and will not preclude consideration of suitable schemes for other areas.

Sir P. Harris: Does the hon. Member realise that there is a serious shortage of constructional steel and that big building schemes are being held up by the want of the necessary steel? Is he also aware that prices are rapidly rising in this particular industry? Will he, therefore, see that something is done to break up the international cartel, or that the opening up of new steel works is facilitated?

Miss Ward: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider setting out a concise statement of what exactly the position is in this matter?

Dr. Burgin: I am sure that by question and answer it is not possible to give the concise statement which the hon. Member desires. I am perfectly aware of the position in the iron and steel industry, and the answer to the question which the hon. Member asked as to Scunthorpe is that that particular scheme is in the national interest. There is no reason why a particular scheme being in the national interest any other scheme which is in the


national interest should not receive consideration on its merits.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that the syndicate which is backing the Jarrow scheme is still prepared to go on with the matter provided they are guaranteed against discrimination by the iron and steel trade am I to understand that the Government now will be prepared to give further consideration to that scheme if it is put before them?

Dr. Burgin: The claims of Jarrow are not in any sense being overlooked, but I should not like the hon. Member to assume that the answer to her question is in the affirmative in regard to the particular scheme to which she refers. There is no reason why a proposal dealing with the steel industry in Jarrow should not receive consideration on its merits.

UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).

Sir P. Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the result of his discussions in the United States of America during his recent visit; and whether there is any immediate prospect of any trade agreement being arrived at?

Dr. Burgin: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him and the hon. Member for Dorset East (Mr. Hall-Caine) by my right hon. Friend on 9th February.

Sir P. Harris: That was a week ago, and in the meantime statements are being made in America. Why should the Americans be frank with their public and the British Government be so secretive? Why are we not given the same information?

Dr. Burgin: There is nothing secretive whatever. My right hon. Friend gave a full and complete answer on a previous occasion, and I am sure the hon. Member will be the first person to wish to put the same question again in a month's time.

Sir P. Harris: Should not the country have this information sooner?

INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether with a view to facilitating a revival of world trade, His Majesty's Government will propose the re-assembling of the World Economic Conference, adjourned in July, 1933?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14th May last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement recently made by Mr. Cordell Hull that an adequate revival of international trade would be the most powerful single factor in lessening political tension and in averting the danger of war, and, that being so, would it not be worth consideration, in co-operation with President Roosevelt, to make another attempt to solve these world economic problems?

The Prime Minister: I think we shall all find ourselves in agreement with that statement, but according to our information the present would not be a favourable time for calling the conference. If it were a favourable time, I would gladly consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING CASUALTIES (AIR SERVICES).

Major Neven-Spence: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the circumstances attending the recent loss of 30 lives in the wreck of the "Johannes Thorden" in the Pentland Firth, he will arrange for use to be made of local air services, when necessary, for searching the sea in the vicinity of wrecks?

Dr. Burgin: The Coastguard Service has made use of air services on several occasions for the purpose of locating shipping casualties, and I am taking steps to ensure that the services of aircraft are sought whenever the circumstances demand.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTHOUSE FUND.

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present approximate balance available in the General Lighthouse Fund; and whether, in view of the fact that the revenue of this fund has exceeded the expenditure for the past 10 years, any plans are under contemplation for adding to or improving existing lighthouses and light-vessels around the coasts of Great Britain?

Dr. Burgin: The balance which will be available on the General Lighthouse Fund


at the end of the present financial year on 31st March next is estimated at £270,000. As my hon. Friend will see from the accounts of the fund for the year ended 31st March, 1936, laid before Parliament, the revenue does not regularly exceed the expenditure, and the net excess over the past 10 years was quite small (about £45,000). Additions and improvements in the lighthouse services are authorised year by year as requisite, and a scheme for the replacement of obsolescent light-vessels has recently been initiated.

Mr. Paling: Will the balance in this fund be pinched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Defence?

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT (STORAGE).

Sir William Wayland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present capacity for the storage of wheat in elevators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to-day compared with January, 1936?

Dr. Burgin: My right hon. Friend has obtained information as to storage facilities for wheat, but it would not be in the public interest to publish it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Government's desire to improve the physique of the nation, he will appoint at least one qualified physical training instructor to each Territorial unit?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): This matter is under consideration.

THE CORONATION (LONDON UNITS).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disappointment caused to London Territorial units at the comparatively small numbers which are to be employed in lining the streets of their own territorial city at the Coronation; and whether, in view of the responsibilities recently placed on London Territorials in connection with the defence of London from air attack, he will consider the possibility of doubling the line on certain

parts of the route overlooked by stands, and therefore not interfering with the view of pedestrians, to enable a larger number of London Territorials to be employed and give an impetus to recruiting in the London area?

Mr. Croom-Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, before arriving at the decision that all Territorial Army units shall be equally represented at the Coronation ceremony, he took into consideration the fact that members of provincial units who are not selected to attend the national ceremony in London will be able to participate in local celebrations, whereas those in the London area will have no opportunities of this nature; and whether, with a view to allaying the disappointment felt generally by members of London units, he will arrange to increase their representation on the occasion of the Coronation procession?

Mr. Cooper: All factors have been duly considered, including the treatment given to London Territorial Army units on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee celebrations and of the Royal Funeral, and I see no reason for departing from the decision already taken that London and provincial troops shall be equally represented. As regards the absence of local celebrations which members of London units can attend, it has now been decided that on the occasion of the Royal visit to Guildhall the streets shall be lined entirely by London Territorials, and in view of this my hon. Friends will no doubt agree that the London units will have no cause for complaint or disappointment.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Does the word "provincial" include Scotland?

DRILL HALLS.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for War what accommodation is being provided in new Territorial drill halls for the social and recreational needs of all ranks; and whether he is satisfied that the present allowance is sufficient?

Mr. Cooper: The scales of accommodation referred to vary with the establishments of units, and cannot conveniently be stated within the limits of an answer to a question. I am considering whether there is room for improvement in any respect.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT RANGEFINDER.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the efficacy of an antiaircraft rangefinder known as Hank's Predictor; whether this safeguarding device has been tested; whether the results were found to be satisfactory; and whether it has been taken over by the Government?

Mr. Cooper: An anti-aircraft rangefinder designed by Mr. Hanks was subjected to exhaustive tests many years ago, but was found to be unsatisfactory. Recently claims as to its efficacy have been renewed, but I am advised that the instrument cannot possibly meet the more complex requirements of present day antiaircraft gunnery. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

44TH (LEICESTERSHIRE REGIMENT) ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTALION.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 44th (Leicestershire Regiment) Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Royal Engineers, is up to establishment strength in men and equipment or what respective deficiencies now exist; and what is the location of the complementary artillery defence unit?

Mr. Cooper: The 44th (Leicestershire Regiment) Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Royal Engineers, has at present 22 officers and 283 other ranks towards an establishment of 42 officers and 1,294 other ranks, but as the unit was only formed in December last, these figures are not discouraging. The full provisional scale of searchlight equipment has been issued, and full equipment will be issued as it becomes available. The artillery unit of the 32nd (South Midland) Anti-Aircraft Group of which the 44th (Leicestershire Regiment) Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Royal Engineers, forms part, is located at Birmingham.

Mr. Lyons: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, firstly, whether the issued equipment has been received or not; secondly, whether the Birmingham location of the artillery unit is satisfactory for use in conjunction with the anti-aircraft unit that distance away; and, thirdly, when can a statement as to improved conditions of service be expected?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better put those questions on the Paper.

EMPLOYES, LONDON BOROUGHS.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for War the names of the London boroughs which have refused to grant holidays with pay to those of their employés who join the Territorial Army?

Mr. Cooper: This information is not available.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would it not be possible to take steps to acquire that very valuable information?

Mr. Cooper: I do not know that there is any point in my going to the trouble which would be involved in acquiring the information when there are no steps I can take in the matter.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Surely we could bring public opinion to bear on those boroughs?

ANTI-AIRCRAFT BRIGADES (GUNS).

Mr. Emmott: asked the Secretary of State for War how many units of the Territorial Army Anti-Aircraft Brigades charged with the defence of London are still equipped with three-inch guns?

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the three-inch guns with which the anti-aircraft brigades charged with the defence of London are equipped are obsolescent; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to substitute for them guns of 3.7 inch and 4.45-inch calibre?

Mr. Cooper: The units of the Territorial Army Anti-Aircraft Brigades are at present armed with the three-inch antiaircraft gun. This gun is still an extremely effective weapon, but in view of the still greater efficacy of the new types referred to in the question, it is intended gradually to substitute them for the three-inch gun.

Mr. Emmott: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he anticipates that this substitution will be complete?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the treatment of these anti-aircraft brigades by the War Office has been as good as it would be if they were under the charge of the Air Ministry?

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Major Rayner: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of civil servants now actually serving in the Territorial Forces; and what steps are taken by the different Departments to stimulate enlistment in the Territorials on the part of their respective staffs?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): As regards the first part of the question, I regret that the information is not available. As regards the second part, I am glad to be able to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, subject only to the vital requirements of the public service, Government Departments give every encouragement to members of their staff to join the Territorial Army, and I would refer him in this connection to the first part of the answer which I gave on 9th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon he proposes to issue a circular to Government Departments informing them of the decision to grant extra leave with pay to civil servants attending Territorial camps?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I hope that the necessary detailed instructions will be issued in the course of the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is eight months since a decision was reached and that the delay in issuing a circular to civil servants is prejudicing the recruiting of them for the Territorials?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The decision to grant leave with pay has already been announced. As for the detailed instruction for which my hon. Friend is waiting I would remind him that there are other auxiliary forces. Their period of training may differ, and it is desirable that the instruction when issued should be comprehensive.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MILITARY OBSERVERS (SPAIN).

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for War why there are no British military observers with General Franco's armies, in view of the fact that

more valuable information could be accumulated by this country were there military observers accredited to both sides in the Spanish war?

Mr. Cooper: While it is not possible at present to attach an officer permanently to General Franco's armies, it is hoped to take advantage of opportunities that may occur for a visit by one of our assistant military attaches.

Captain Ramsay: In view of the obvious importance of a knowledge from both sides and a knowledge of the weapons of foreign countries, and in view of the fact that for months past nothing has been done, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea why nothing has been done all this time?

Mr. McGovern: Would it not be desirable that Sir Oswald Mosley should be allocated to this duty?

Mr. Mander: Is it not important that we should know exactly how the Italian and German armies are functioning in action?

Captain Ramsay: I beg to give notice that, unless some further satisfactory answer is given to me, I propose to raise on the Adjournment the question of our having military observers on both sides.

KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at as to the future use or disposal of Knightsbridge Barracks and its site; and, in the event of disposal, what special conditions will be imposed as to the use of same?

Mr. Cooper: The disposal of Knightsbridge Barracks is not under discussion. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have taken any decision on the recommendations of the report issued by the Howard Frank Committee on this subject?

RECRUITING.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the dearth of recruits for the Army, he will consider the advisability of suspending recruiting regulations which prevent the re-enlistment of unemployed ex-service men and reservists who have married since leaving the Regular Army?

Mr. Cooper: This matter is under consideration.

MUNITION FACTORY, IRVINE.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: asked the Secretary of State the present number of workers employed in connection with the new munition factory at Irvine, in Ayrshire; what proportion of these is Scottish; what will be the total number of workers to be employed at this factory when it is in full operation; and what proportion of these workers will be Scottish?

Mr. Cooper: The number of men at present employed in connection with the new factory at Irvine is 227. Of this number 95 per cent. are locally-engaged men. The approximate number to be employed when the factory is in full operation is 650, of whom it is estimated that approximately 90 per cent. will be local.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the peculiar suitability, from the strategic and economic point of view, for a further development of the Irvine factory, and will he bear that in mind?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HEAVY HORSE-BREEDING.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a decision has yet been reached on the question of restoring the heavy horse-breeding grant for Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I have given careful consideration to the representations made to me on this subject; I have reached the conclusion that there is no sufficient justification at the present time for charging public funds with a general restoration of heavy horse-breeding grants in Scotland, but that it would be expedient to revive the special grants which were offered to societies in the islands of Orkney and in Argyll, which are part of the congested districts, to help to defray some of the additional expense incurred by these societies in obtaining high-class stallions from the mainland. I have, therefore, arranged that a limited amount of money will be provided for this purpose in the coming financial year.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether

he will instruct his nominee on the Racecourse Betting Control Board to suggest that, in view of the increased surplus available in the totalisator fund and of the fact that part of the revenue of the Board is obtained from Scottish sources, part of the distributable surplus should be made available for the promotion of Scottish horse-breeding?

Mr. Elliot: The issue of such an instruction as is referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is not within my powers. I am glad, however, to be able to inform him that the claims of the Scottish heavy horse-breeding industry for a grant from the surplus arising out of the operations of the Racecourse Betting Control Board in 1936 are at present engaging the attention of the Board, who are in correspondence with me on the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Board how much appreciated by the horse-breeding industry in Scotland would be a satisfactory decision on this matter?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand that the Betting Control Board is distributing dividends before it has paid off its overdraft?

CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT, PERTH.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take in response to the petition sent on behalf of the staff in the Criminal Lunatic Department, Perth, complaining of long hours of duty and irregular mealtimes?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 31st July, 1936, to a previous question by him, in which it was stated that the working hours in force at the Criminal Lunatic Department were suggested by the staff themselves. Since then no petition on the subject has been received by the Prisons Department, but if any representations are made they will receive due consideration.

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to remove the grievances of the Scottish prison officers that they are not allowed representation on the National Whitley Council; that the manner in which representations from the Prison Officers Representative Board on the pay


question have been treated by his Department causes discontent; and that the meetings at prisons do not represent more than a third of the staff?

Mr. Elliot: Prison officers, as members of a discipline service, are not within the scope of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, but are afforded due opportunity of making representations on matters affecting their conditions of service through a representative board constituted for the purpose. No alteration in this procedure, which is designed to meet the particular circumstances of the prisons service, seems to be necessary. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that representations from the board are not properly considered. As regards the last part of the question, reports of attendances at meetings are not made to the Department, as the matter is one for the staffs themselves. I understand, however, that a marked increase of interest in the representative board has recently been shown, and that a full and active board is now in being.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the very existence of these questions is an indication of dissatisfaction, and will he not have some further inquiry made in order to endeavour to create the satisfaction which should exist?

Mr. Elliot: I think we ought to try the matter out now that we have a much larger attendance at the representative board than was the case when the old board was in existence.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious crisis that has developed in egg and poultry marketing in Scotland; and whether he will consider the advisability of meeting representatives of the poultry breeders with a view to arriving at some measure of agreement that will end the present unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the position of the poultry industry in Scotland; that smallholders in the county of Linlithgow, with the cost of feeding-stuffs 4o per cent. in advance and the prices obtained for eggs at least 25 per

cent. below last year's figures, are facing ruin; and what immediate steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the poultry industry in Scotland is in a critical state; that large numbers of poultry-keepers are on the verge of bankruptcy on account of the low prices now being obtained for home-grown eggs; and whether he is prepared to receive a deputation from the organised poultry-keepers of Scotland in order to consider immediate steps for the relief of a dangerous situation?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the concern felt amongst poultry farmers in Scotland in regard to the position of the industry, and I can assure the hon. Members that the position is being carefully watched by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself. I am at all times ready to consider a request from representative organisations of producers to discuss their particular problems. No approach has, however, been made to me by the organised poultry industry.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the crisis is very serious, and that many poultry breeders are threatened with having to go out of business as a consequence of the very high cost of feeding, and will he not therefore take the most urgent steps to save this industry?

Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed from the Board of Trade answers on this subject to-day, that China does not come in the list of those countries whose eggs must be allowed in, and in view of the fact that much of the trouble is being caused by Chinese eggs, supposed to have been diverted from Spain, will he not consider prohibiting their entry to this country?

Mr. Speaker: We are spending too much time on eggs this afternoon.

BLOCK GRANT FORMULA.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the promised White Paper, dealing with the financial effect to the local authorities of the new formula for the allocation of block grants to Scottish local authorities, will be available?

Mr. Elliot: I hope to lay before the House in about a fortnight's time a White Paper dealing with the statutory inquiry into the working of the block grant formula in Scotland, and outlining the Government's proposals relating to the amount and distribution of the Scottish grant during the fixed grant period beginning on 16th May next. A separate Scottish Bill for giving effect to these proposals will be introduced at the same time.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LAW CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the desire amongst local authorities in Scotland for the consolidation of local government statute law relating to public health; and what action he proposes to give effect to the desires of the local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that Scottish local authorities have expressed the desire for the consolidation of the law relating to public health. I have every sympathy with their views, and I am keeping the matter before me in my consideration of the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set aside a special draftsman for the purpose of carrying through that work without which it is almost impossible to get the work completed in time to help the existing local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly consider the question of engaging additional staff for this purpose.

AVGRANCY.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had time to study the report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy in Scotland, particularly chapter III, paragraph 28, which deals with the methylated spirit and "Red Biddy" drinkers and the addicts to even worse concoctions; whether he has considered the recommendations contained in chapter XII, paragraph 152, for dealing with these addicts; and, if so, what action, if any, is proposed to give effect to the recommendations?

Mr. Elliot: The report is under consideration. As stated in the report, the

drinking of methylated spirits, "Red Biddy," and other such concoctions is not confined to vagrants. The recommendation in paragraph 152 that vagrants addicted to such practices should be compulsorily detained raises a very wide question, which requires careful consideration.

Mr. Logan: Is it not a fact that "Red Biddy" could never do any harm to a Scotsman?

SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE (SALARIES).

Sir Douglas Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the salaries of sheriffs-substitute?

Mr. Elliot: I am at present unable to add to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) on 15th December.

Sir D. Thomson: In view of the considerable time that has elapsed since then, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to come to an early decision?

Mr. Elliot: I will do my best.

DRAINAGE (MILTON OF BALGONIE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the villagers of Milton of Balgonie were charged a rate of 11¾. in the pound for 1936 in respect of drainage in the village; that no drainage has been proceeded with; that the Fife County Council say that the drainage of Milton of Balgonie is part of a larger scheme, the drainage of the River Leven, which will ultimately benefit Milton of Balgonie; and will he take steps to see that the drainage of the village is immediately attended to or the money secured by the drainage rate returned to those from whom it has been taken?

Mr. Elliot: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the county council have before them a scheme for the purification of the River Leven by the construction of a regional sewer into which the drainage of sewers for Milton of Balgonie would discharge. I am informed that progress is being made in the necessary negotiations between the county council and the industrialists and neighbouring authorities concerned and that the county council consider they are fully entitled to levy the rate in question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it permissible that the people of Milton of Balgonie should pay a rate of 11¾. for drainage and get no drainage?

Mr. Elliot: If the inhabitants think they are being improperly rated, the remedy is to be sought in the Law Courts. The Secretary of State has no power to intervene in the matter.

BARLEY.

Sir Edmund Findlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantity of foreign barley of the season 1936 crop has been landed at Lossiemouth to the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the average price paid by the distillers for this barley?

Mr. Elliot: As indicated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 16th June, 1936, separate figures as to imports of barley into Lossiemouth are not available. I will, with his permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement showing the quantities and values of barley imported into the Port of Inverness, including Lossiemouth, for the months of September, 1936, to January, 1937, inclusive. I regret that information as to the price paid by distillers is not available.

Following is the statement:

Quantities and value of barley imported into the Port of Inverness (including Ballachulish, Burghead, Findhorn, Fort William, Invergordon, Isle of Skye, Lossiemouth, Portmahomack and Portree).

Month.
Quantity.
Value.
Average per cwt.



Cwts.
£
s.
d.


September, 1936
21,296
6,872
6
5


October, 1936
129,942
52,687
8
1


November, 1936
77,431
33,072
8
7


December, 1936
38,312
16,996
8
10


January, 1937
30,000
13,785
9
2


Total
296,981
123,412
8
4

Sir E. Findlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average price paid by distillers for home barley of the season 1936 crop?

Mr. Elliot: The average price of barley at the Scottish markets from which returns are received, for the period October, 1936, to January, 1937, was 8s. 6d. per cwt. The returns do not, however, distinguish between malting and other barley, and I

am therefore unable to reply specifically to my hon. Friend's question.

MUNICIPAL HOUSES (SUB-LETTING).

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the subletting at excessive profits of municipal houses; and whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements in Scotland to control this practice are adequate to safeguard the interests of tenants as a whole?

Mr. Elliot: I have seen a recent Press report indicating that Cumnock Town Council have decided to make a full inquiry into allegations about the subletting of their houses. With regard to the latter part of the question, under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, a local authority must make it a condition of every let that the tenant shall not sub-let the house without the written consent of the authority, who must, before giving consent, satisfy themselves that only a reasonable rent is to be charged for the sub-let. The attention of local authorities was recently drawn to these provisions which in my opinion should be adequate.

HOUSING.

Mr. Watson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances the Department of Health refused to sanction the acceptance of the lowest offer for the supply of gas and cookers to the new housing scheme at Crosshill and Rosewell, Fife; and whether this is a departure from the usual custom of the Department?

Mr. Elliot: Although the county council accepted the offer of the gas company whose tender for installation of gas and cookers was slightly higher than that of the other gas company which tendered, the Department decided that they would not be justified in interfering with the council's decision in view of the higher price which tenants would subsequently have had to pay for gas supplied by the latter company. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is the Department's practice to insist on the acceptance of the lowest offer for housing contracts except where a local authority adduce satisfactory reasons for passing it over.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the tenants of the property at 18, Soho Street. Glasgow, are to have suitable housing accommoda-


tion provided for them in view of the housing conditions of the property concerned?

Mr. Elliot: At their meeting on l0th February the housing committee of the Glasgow Corporation made a demolition order in respect of the 13 houses at 18, Soho Street, and one at 20, Soho Street. The corporation inform me that they hope to commence the rehousing of the families at the end of the three weeks which must elaspes before the order becomes operative.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps, if any, are being taken by Glasgow Corporation to increase and accelerate their housing programme in view of the hardships under which so many thousands of people are living in the slum areas of the city?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the housing department of the corporation estimate that 4.446 houses will be built in 1937 as compared with 1,985 in 1936. I hope to have next week an opportunity of discussing the position informally with the corporation representatives in Glasgow.

Mr. Stephen: May I thank the right lion. Gentleman for his answers, and say that I am glad the people in Soho Street are now to get a decent house?

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the definition of a small holding built with the financial assistance of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: The operations of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are governed by a somewhat complicated code of legislation, and I am afraid that no definition such as the hon. Member desires is possible. I may add that in a recent handbook 10 pages are devoted to a discussion accompanied by references to case law on the subject of "What is a Holding and what is not?"

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for that reason, namely, because there are so many definitions and findings, many people are penalised when it comes to assessments; and will he see that that unfair position is corrected by giving definite instructions to county councils and valuation appeal courts?

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of his Department that smallholders settled or financially assisted by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland should have their holdings and houses thereon assessed as one subject, as in the case of larger farms, and enjoy derating like farmers?

Mr. Elliot: It has recently been decided by the Lands Valuation Appeal Court that a house forming part of an improvement provided by a smallholder should be entered in the valuation roll for rating purposes, but that where the house is suitable and accessory to the holding it should receive the benefits of derating as an agricultural subject. The effect of these decisions could not be varied except by legislation, which would involve wide questions of principle affecting the valuation and rating laws. I am not in a position to make any statement about legislation, but the position is at present under careful review.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that again, because of the uncertainty in the position, many people are being penalised, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Elliot: I have already said that I am not in a position to make any statement about legislation, but that the position is under careful review.

CROFTER-FISHERMEN, ISLE OF LEWIS.

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the crofter-fishermen at Sandwick Parks, Isle of Lewis, were regarded as agricultural holders when these holdings were created; whether the holdings are still regarded by the Scottish Department of Agriculture as agricultural holdings; and, if so, whether he will take action to protect the rights of these crofter-fishermen as agricultural tenants against unjust assessments?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In the particulars of the scheme at Sandwick Parks issued to applicants in March, 1932, the subjects were described by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland as "building sites to be let to bona fide fishermen." The incidence of probable rating was also explained. I observe that unsuccessful appeal has been made to the competent rating authority who


took the view that the subjects were nonagricultural. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once again in this matter, owing to the uncertainty prevailing, many people are being penalised in a way which they did not anticipate when they were settled as agricultural tenants, because they are not now regarded as agricultural tenants, their houses are being assessed separately, and they do not receive the benefit of de-rating as big farmers do?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think the hon. Member could have listened fully to my reply. These subjects do not relate to agriculturists, but to fishermen.

Mr. MacMillan: I do not accept that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

MALE SERVANTS (LICENCES).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that private gardeners are now included in the unemployment insurance scheme for agricultural workers, involving the employer in a new annual contribution of 19s. 5d., he will consider the abolition of the male servants tax of 15s. per annum in so far as it concerns gardeners?

Mr. Chamberlain: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 1st December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that different local authorities are quite differently interpreting the law as to male servants duty; that, for example, the East Sussex County Council is not for the present demanding this tax; and whether, in view of the urgent need for increasing employment, he will consider altering the law on this subject?

Mr. Chamberlain: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would point out that the Male Servant Licence Duty is administered with independent authority within its respective area by each of the county and county borough councils in England and Wales; as regards the third part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 1st

December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills).

CAPITAL LEVY.

Mr. Cassells: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing the next Budget, relative to defence charges of £400,000,000, he will give due regard to a policy of capital levy?

Mr. Chamberlain: I cannot discuss beforehand the contents of the next Budget Statement.

Mr. Cassells: May we accept it that the policy of the Government under this Defence Loan is to penalise the poorest-paid among the working classes of the community?

THE CORONATION.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will grant to all State employés and unemployed persons a bonus such as is being granted by certain commercial firms to their employés to celebrate the Coronation?

Mr. Chamberlain: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Day: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give particulars of any new gold and silver coins it is proposed to issue to mark the coronation of their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot anticipate the detailed terms of the Royal Proclamation which must issue before any new coins are struck, but it is contemplated that specimen sets of such coins will be available at special prices to all who apply for them.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give particulars of how these sets will be available to the public?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not at this date.

Mr. Logan: Will the special prices be the Mint prices?

Mr. Day: Will the coins be issued by ballot?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir; I said that it is contemplated that such coins will be available to all who apply for them.

Mr. Wells: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in view of the possibility of the new coinage not being sufficient to meet the demands by 12th May, whether he will take steps to ensure that the Royal Mint produce a good supply of half-crowns for distribution to those desiring to commemorate the Coronation in this manner?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I understand that for technical reasons it may not be possible to ensure a sufficient supply of new half-crowns. In the circumstances the Mint propose to concentrate upon the supply of new florins for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.

SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give particulars of the total profits realised by the Suez Canal Company and the rates of dividend paid by them during each of the last five years?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Suez Canal Company.


—

Profits available after meeting Statutory Interest and Sinking Fund.
Dividend per share (excluding Statutory Interest).




Francs.
Francs.


1931
…
564,794,834
543·44


1932
…
494,462,499
448·44


1933
…
547,602,147
463·44


1934
…
546,748,293
463·44


1935
…
585,622,083
490·68


1936
…
—
179·00(a)


(a) Interim dividend.

CORPORATION OF FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders is subsidised by Government grants or draws its revenue from bondholders; and whether sufficient funds are at its disposal to enable its representatives to visit foreign countries?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Corporation of Foreign Bondholders does not receive a grant from His Majesty's Government. Its income is derived from the amounts which it collects from the foreign Governments with which it negotiates in reimbursement of its expenses, from its own funds, and from voluntary contributions. Only on exceptional occasions has the corporation made any charges to bondholders for its valuable services. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what number of loans have been made, and to what amount, by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, apart from loans approved in principle, in respect of the North-East Special Area?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson) on 3rd December, 1936, from which he will see that it is considered undesirable to give figures for the individual areas covered by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Will the Government keep steadily in view the necessities of the Special Areas, and will they not issue some announcement before the Special Areas Bill is introduced?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is in the affirmative; these special needs are kept in mind. I cannot promise any further announcement at present.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is keen feeling in the Special Areas about the failure to divulge what money is being expended, each area feeling that the Government are spending no money, but are just putting off one area by talking about spending money in another?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I have referred he will see the reasons why my right hon. Friend thinks it undesirable to disclose the amount for each area.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give any indication when the Special Areas Bill will be introduced?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

HYDROGENATION (BILLINGHAM).

Mr. Hardie: asked the Secretary for Mines the cost of petrol production per gallon by the hydrogenation process at Billingham?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am not in a position to supply the information asked for.

Mr. Hardie: Why is it, although the people of this country are being compelled to pay for this experiment, that we are denied any information of what is taking place at this plant at Billingham?

Mr. James Griffiths: When is it proposed that the House and the nation shall know something about this Billingham experiment, in view of the fact that it has the protection of the nation? In view of its supreme importance to the mining industry, may we press for an early reply?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot possibly say. I have told the House many times that the commercial success or otherwise of this experiment has not yet been proved. We must wait for the information, which I hope will be available eventually from Imperial Chemical Industries, with whom it rests to supply it.

Mr. Hardie: Is it not a fact that the technical information is there, and that its commercial value has been determined? Otherwise the I.C.I. men are all fools. But they are not.

Mr. Hardie: asked the Secretary for Mines the loss of revenue on the production of 150,000 tons of petrol at Billingham hydrogenation process based upon the 8d. per gallon on imported petrol?

Captain Crookshank: Assuming approximately 300 gallons of motor spirit to the ton, the import tax of 8d. a gallon on 150,000 tons of imported motor spirit would realise about £1,500,000.

Mr. Hardie: Does the Minister realise from the figures he has given that for every miner taken on to produce coal, for every shilling which is thus being saved in unemployment pay, 12s. has to go to the I.C.I.? That is what those figures mean, and why cannot we have some explanation of them?

CLOSED PITS.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of pits closed in the British coalfield, and the number of persons rendered idle since 1924?

Captain Crookshank: Since 1st January, 1924, 1,390 pits in Great Britain, each employing 10 or more persons, and in the aggregate 201,244 persons, have been closed and not re-opened, but it would be wrong to assume that all these persons were rendered idle. In a number of cases the output and some of the employés were transferred to other pits.

Sir G. Fox: Were not most of those pits closed as a result of the general strike of 1926?

Mr. Lawson: Has the Minister any information about how many of those pits have been closed by the action of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

ROYALTIES.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in connection with the proposed legislation for the unification of coal royalties, steps are being taken to ascertain the approximate royalty value of seams of coal which have not at present been worked; and whether he can give an undertaking that arrangements will be made to provide adequate compensation for those who are not at present receiving any royalty income in respect of seams at present not being worked but who anticipate that income will accrue to them through the working of these seams in the future?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that these and all other relevant questions are having consideration.

Mr. Paling: Are we to take it that compensation is to be paid to people who own seams when it is not known whether they can be worked?

BUNKER COAL.

Sir D. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Mines the approximate rises in the last six months in the price of bunker coal to trawlers f.o.b., Forth ports, Tyne ports, and Humber ports, respectively?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that this information is not available.

EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Secretary for Mines the comparative figures for the French mining industry and the British mining industry, showing the number of explosions in mines in each country and the number of persons killed in such explosions during the last 15 years?

Captain Crookshank: It appears doubtful from a detailed examination of the basis upon which the accident records of the two countries are compiled whether the figures as regards explosions are on a comparable basis. I am having further inquiries made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

WAGES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the rates of wages for all classes of workers employed in afforestation schemes in England, Scotland, and Wales; the total number of workers employed for the years 1935 and 1936, to the nearest available date, giving the number of workers in each county where afforestation schemes are now in progress; and whether recent applications have been made for increases in wages to all classes of workers, and with what success?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The time rate of wages paid by the Forestry Commissioners to adult males in England and Wales is 39s. per week in Glamorgan, 36s. in Carnarvon and Derby and 35s. in all other counties. Piece work rates where practicable provide opportunities for earning more. In the north-eastern counties in Scotland the rate is 38s., and in the others 40s. 6d. An average of 10 per cent. above the local agricultural wage is paid by the Commission to women and juveniles. The minimum number of Commission workers employed in the last

two years was approximately 3,000 and the maximum was approximately 3,900, the number of Commission workers in each county being shown in a list which, with the permission of the House, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Applications have recently been made for increases in wages and in Glamorgan the Agricultural Wages Committee granted the application.

Following is the list:


County.
Minimum.
Maximum.


Bedford
…
8
12


Berkshire
…
8
16


Brecknock
…
15
28


Caernarvon
…
41
44


Cardigan
…
45
39


Carmarthen
…
84
119


Cheshire
…
50
54


Cornwall
…
16
18


Cumberland
…
126
194


Denbigh
…
53
62


Derby
…
21
25


Devon
…
8l
87


Dorset
…
45
36


Durham
…
24
62


Gloucester
…
72
89


Glamorgan
…
70
78


Hants
…
164
171


Hereford
…
35
25


Isle of Wight
…
31
29


Kent
…
24
34


Lines
…
24
40


Merioneth
…
73
119


Monmouth
…
161
194


Montgomery
…
36
50


Norfolk
…
74
131


Northants
…
66
99


Northumberland
…
80
109


Notts
…
37
56


Oxford
…
3
5


Radnor
…
38
28


Shropshire
…
4
7


Somerset
…
25
26


Staffs
…
33
41


Suffolk
…
92
167


Surrey
…
5
6


Sussex
…
32
42


Wilts
…
6
13


Worcester
…
17
20


Yorks
…
77
144


Aberdeen
…
103
151


Angus
…
10
13


Argyll
…
286
294


Ayr
…
—
8


Berwick
…
4
7


Dumfries
…
44
—


Elgin or Moray
…
64
202


Fife
…
57
107


Inverness
…
203
244


Kincardine
…
24
33


Kinross
…
2
2


Kirkcudbright
…
55
80


Nairn
…
9
9


Peebles
…
21
19


Perth
…
138
117


Ross
…
60
83


Roxburgh
…
9
11


Stirling
…
15
15


Sutherland
…
12
11


Wigtown
…
4
7


Isle of Skye
…
10
13

NEW FOREST.

Sir W. Davison: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether his attention has been drawn to the recent report of the New Forest Association from which it appears that the tracks, rides, footpaths, roads, and ditches in the forest are urgently in need of repair; and whether he will consider the desirability of employing men out of work in carrying out these necessary repairs which require no special skill?

Mr. Westwood: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member who asks a question to be provided with the answer before the House itself gets the answer?

Mr. McGovern: And then to hand the answer over to the Minister so that he can reply.

Mr. Speaker: As long as the House gets the answer, that is what really matters.

Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners are giving attention to the questions raised in the report referred to by the hon. Member and to questions of a similar nature affecting the management of the New Forest. In the meantime they have no unallocated funds at their disposal for the relief of unemployment in that district.

Sir W. Davison: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department keep in touch with the Ministry of Labour with a view to the establishment of an unemployment camp in the New Forest, which is a place eminently suitable for such a camp?

Sir G. Courthope: We are already in communication.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. If the same practice in dealing with answers were followed in the case of all Members

of this House, would it not be quite impossible for us to get through questions? They would have the answer well in advance and would know what supplementaries to put to Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE-FISH INDUSTRY.

Sir D. Thomson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is hoped to introduce legislation shortly dealing with the reorganisation of the white-fish industry?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. The matter is at present under consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement.

Sir D. Thomson: Will the Minister endeavour to make a statement as soon as possible, in view of the uncertainty prevailing in the industry?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what business it is proposed to take if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended?

The Prime Minister: The Committee stage of the Statutory Salaries [Money] Resolution and the several Government of India and Burma Orders which are on the Paper. We should also like to obtain Orders Nos. 1 to 4, and to deal with the Amendments to the Unemployment Assistance Bill, which is expected to come from another place this evening, and which is a purely drafting Measure.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 113.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C, M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Baxter, A. Beverley
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brass, Sir W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brisooe, Capt. R. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beit, Sir A. L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Apsley, Lord
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast. W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Blair, Sir R.
Bull, B. B.


Assheton, R.
Bossom, A. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boulton, W. W.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Butler, R. A.




Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cary, R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Christie, J. A.
Hunter, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Clarke, F. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jackson, Sir H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salt, E. W.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Critchley, A.
Lees-Jones, J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crooke, J. S.
Leigh, Sir J.
Scott, Lord William


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crossley, A. C.
Levy, T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crowder, J F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


De Chair, S. S.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


De la Bère, R.
Lyons, A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spens. W. P.


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maitland, A
Sutcliffe, H.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Emery, J. F.
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emmott, G. E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Taylor Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Touche, G. C.


Evans. Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Train, Sir J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Turton, R. H.


Findlay, Sir E. Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morgan, R. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Munro, P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Granville E. L.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wells, S. R.


Grettor, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gridley, Sir A, B.
Patrick, C. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Peake, O.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Peat, C. U.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Perkins, W. R. D,
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Peters, Dr. S, J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pilkington, R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Porritt, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Hepburn, P. G. T. Euchan
Radford, E. A.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barr, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon, C. R.
Batey, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Banfield, J. W.
Bellenger, F. J.


Ammon, C. G
Barnes, A. J.
Broad, F. A.







Bromfield, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Sanders, W. S.


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.


Cassells, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Short, A.


Chater, D.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thurtle, E.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Milner, Major J.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F,
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Halt, G. H. (Aberdare)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, G. D.
Parker, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hopkin, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, W.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

BILL PRESENTED.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to amend Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1929; and to repeal section forty-five of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and the proviso to paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Colville and Mr. R. S. Hudson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills intended to be introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, should be first considered, and they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely,

Glasgow Corporation Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Annual Holiday Bill): Sir Isidore Salmon; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Roland Robinson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing


Committee B: Mr. Kimball, Major Owen, and Admiral Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson Clarke, Mr. Ross Taylor, and Mr. Graham White.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Factories Bill): the Lord Advocate, Colonel Sandeman Allen, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Broad, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bull, Mr. Burke, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir John Haslam, Mr. Hollins, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. R. S. Hudson, Mr. Richard Law, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. McCorquodale, Mr. Mander, Mr. Moreing, Major Neven-Spence, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Porritt, Major Procter, Sir Eugene Ramsden, Mr. Short, Mr. Silverman, Sir John Simon, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr. Walker.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, with an Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make better provision for the preservation, care and custody of the Public Records of Scotland, and for the discharge of the duties of Principal Extractor of the Court of Session." [Public Records (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

STATUTORY SALARIES [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to provide for increasing to the amounts hereinafter specified the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the following offices, that is to say, the offices—

(i) of county court judges in England and Wales to two thousand pounds;
(ii) of the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand three hundred pounds;
(iii) of other metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand pounds;
(iv) of the recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, respectively, so long (in each case) as the office is held by the existing holder, to such amount as is equal to the total annual remuneration now paid in respect of those offices;
(b) to provide for the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the offices of the chairman and of the other members of the Scottish Land Court, and the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the offices of the Commissioners of Crown Lands (other than the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), of the Lyon King of Arms, of the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland, and of the Lyon Clerk, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Treasury, and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, so, however, that any salary of which the amount is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph shall, so long as it continues to be payable to the existing holder of the office or employment in respect of which it is payable, be at an annual rate not less than that of the total remuneration at present paid to him in respect of that office or employment;
(c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively, of such sums as may become payable in consequence of such provision as aforesaid;
(d) to provide for such consequential amendments of the enactments relating to the salaries aforesaid as may be necessary."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[The Solicitor-General.]

3.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The Committee will see that the Resolution falls into two main parts, (a) and (b), and that (a), which I think to be more substantial than (b), is subdivided into four subsidiary paragraphs. The effect of most of part (a) will be to increase by a sum of £350 a year the salaries of county court judges and of Metropolitan police magistrates. The first three paragraphs in Roman numerals provide for that increase. The fourth paragraph in Roman numerals provides, not for an increase, but for a regularisation of the salaries at present being paid. Part (b) provides not for any increase in statutory salaries, but for more flexible arrangements to be made than exist at present.
With that bare preliminary observation I proceed to examine the merits of the Resolution. The Committee will see that the first proposal is that the salaries of county court judges should be increased, or that power should be taken to increase their salaries, to a sum of £2,000 a year. The county court judges' salaries were fixed as long ago as 1865 at the sum at which they stand now— £1,500. The actual salary has remained at that figure up to the present time. During the War, like civil servants, they were accorded bonuses. The bonuses rose till they reached a maximum figure of £750, so that at one time county court judges were enjoying an income of £2,250. That bonus has suffered retractation in the same way as in the case of civil servants, but whereas the civil servants' bonuses have been consolidated with their salaries and a regular salary has been established, the peculiar and anomalous position remains that the county court judges receive their old salaries of £1,500, plus a remanet of their bonus, a sum of £150, in addition. That £150 has no statutory authority and is in fact the subject of periodic criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor-General when the accounts are up for examination. There is no Parliamentary authority for it, but year by year the position has been regularised by including the sum in the annual Appropriation Bill. So that the position is that there is statutory authority for only £1,500, and that there is this very unsatisfactory arrangement


whereby the additional £150 is in fact being paid without statutory authority.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is there anything paid in addition for travelling expenses?

The Solicitor-General: I will try to find out; I am not quite sure. I will suggest to the Committee reasons why the substantive salary should be increased to the sum that I have mentioned. The increase of the salary of county court judges is, in our opinion, very long overdue. There has been no Lord Chancellor for the last 20 years who has not been agreed that an occasion should be taken as early as possible for putting county court judges' salaries on a more reasonable footing. As I said, the salary was originally fixed in 1865, but since that time the jurisdiction of the county courts has increased beyond all recognition. In 1903 their Common Law jurisdiction was doubled from £50 to £100, and at that figure it has remained ever since. But in 1865 they did not have, as they now have, the power to try remitted actions for tort from the High Court. Since then the power to remit has been extended to cases where the plaintiff has not any visible means of paying the costs of the defendant. The number of remitted cases sent to the county courts in 1935 was no less than 2,018. That figure of remitted actions is actually higher than the number of actions tried in the High Court in London and Middlesex. So that the county courts have had remitted to them, in relief of the work which is done by High Court judges at a much higher salary, more actions than were actually tried in London and Middlesex during the same period.
In addition to that, since 1884 they have had power to remit inter-pleader issues involving disputes up to £500. In 1868 Admiralty jurisdiction was added, and more recently their jurisdiction in Admiralty was raised to £300. They were accorded bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1869, and that forms at the present time a very substantial part of the county court work. There were 3,163 petitions filed in 1935 and 2,869 receiving orders were made. I must mention, in addition to that, their jurisdiction, one of the most important they exercise, in relation to workmen's compensation. That was first conferred in 1897. The limits have from time to time increased and the judges can now award up to £600 in a case of death, and up to 30s. a week for life in a case

of incapacity. In 1935 there were about 2,000 odd arbitrations heard and about 20,000 agreements registered. I am confident the Committee will agree that in the discharge of their duties under the Workmen's Compensation Act the judges have performed services of the very highest public importance, in addition to the work that they were doing before.

Mr. Ammon: Commensurate with the increased duties that have been given to county court judges has there been an increase in the number of judges?

The Solicitor-General: I will answer that question later. There has certainly not been a proportionate increase in the number of judges, and I do not think that it would affect the point that I am trying to make now, which is as to the vastly increased responsibilities which fall upon the holders of the office.

Mr. Ammon: An increase of judges would make for a distribution of the work?

The Solicitor-General: A distribution as to quantum but not as to the weight of responsibility that the judges have to discharge.

Mr. Cassells: Is it not a fact that the number of arbitrations under the Workmen's Compensation Act is definitely decreasing?

The Solicitor-General: I should doubt that, especially after what was mentioned to me only to-day. Provision exists whereby the arbitration in certain cases can be sent to medical referees under a recent Act, and I was told to-day by a practising member of the Bar who has unrivalled experience of this branch of litigation, that the trade unions were the most vehement in their opposition to having these arbitrations tried by any one but county court judges. I shall not weary the House with a long list of matters in which the county court judges now have a jurisdiction which they did not possess at the time when their salaries were fixed, but I would mention the very heavy and difficult work that they have to do under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Act. The work under that Act is, of course, diminishing, but other Statutes continue to pile up new and difficult responsibilities upon their shoulders. The Agricultural Holdings Act appoints them


as a court of appeal from the referee and they have no upward pecuniary limits. They can now wind up companies up to£10,000, which they could not do before. That is under the Companies Act. Under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, their jurisdiction is difficult and important and without limit as to the amount. They have duties under the Adoption of Children Act and various ecclesiastical Acts relating to the Church under the Shops Acts, and so on.
The extent of their present jurisdiction is reflected by the very remarkable figures of the cases that go to the county court—figures which are perhaps not generally appreciated either in the House or in the country. In 1935 the number of proceedings started in the county courts was 1,229,401, the largest figure since 1911, and the magnitude of that figure can be appreciated when it is remembered that in the same period 94,001 was the number of cases commenced in the High Court. So that the figure is well over 10 times the number of cases tried in the High Court. The number of cases commenced in all the courts of first instance in England and Wales was only 180,672, so that it is clear that to-day the county courts are doing the main bulk of the litigation of the country. I suggest that it is work of the highest possible importance to the State. It is work which makes it necessary that my Noble Friend who has the responsibility of making these appointments should be able to draw upon people in the prime of life, of proved ability in their profession, of sound judgment and of judicial temperament; and in the profession he has to go into the open market to obtain people whose duties impinge almost at every turn on the lives of the people, and more especially upon the lives of the poor. It is in the highest degree important that his scope should not be limited as now by a salary which, adequate in 1865, is thoroughly out of touch with comparable salaries now, and does not enable him to make the selection in the appointments that is necessary if the prestige of these courts is to be maintained in the position it holds at present.
In answer to the question that was asked just now, I am told that the increase in the number of county court judges is one, or perhaps two, so that not only has the burden of responsibility

been increasing but, practically speaking, the same number of people have been left to bear the burden. For these reasons I submit that there is an unanswerable case for an adjustment of these salaries to the modest extent of no more than £350, which is asked for in the Resolution. The judges are awarded superannuation under a separate Act. The Resolution does not in terms deal with superannuation, and I imagine that that will still follow the existing Act.

Mr. Logan: The increase of £350 to £2,000 would carry superannuation?

The Solicitor-General: I would not answer off-hand. I will get the information. We are not asking in terms for authority to increase expenditure on superannuation, but it may be, as the hon. Gentleman says, that an increase will be involved under the Act which deals with superannuation. Let me now deal with the next class of people for whom an increase is being asked for—the metropolitan police magistrates of London.

Mr. E. Dunn: Are all these appointments whole-time appointments?

The Solicitor-General: Oh, yes; without any doubt. The appointments, both of the county court judges and of the police court magistrates, are very whole-time appointments, if I may put it in that way. Indeed, they might be called overtime appointments. Paragraphs (a, ii) and (a, iii) of the Resolution refer to the chief metropolitan police magistrate and the other metropolitan police magistrates, in both of which cases it is proposed to increase the salary by the same amount, namely, £350 a year. What I have already said in regard to the method of payment is equally applicable to the metropolitan police magistrates. They receive salaries which are supplemented, in the anomalous way I have described, by the remains of the War bonus, and the result of the Resolution will be an effective increase of £350 a year in each case on their present remuneration.
The field from which my right hon. Friend has to draw for these exceedingly important appointments is, broadly speaking, the same field that is available to my Noble Friend in making his selection for the county court bench; that is to say, in each case it is vitally important


that he should have at his disposal ripe, sound lawyers of judicial temperament, and again in the prime of life. My right hon. Friend has the same difficulties in staffing his benches for these vastly important functions that my Noble Friend has been experiencing in recent years. Again there is the story of increased jurisdiction, and not only jurisdiction which has increased, but jurisdiction which is vastly more complicated than it was, and which occurs without any corollary increase in salary.
I may say that no fair analogy can be drawn from the mere figures of the number of charges and summonses. No doubt there are fewer "drunks and disorderlies," and fewer cases of arrest of common prostitutes and cases of that simple kind with which metropolitan police magistrates have to deal, but the other cases are now of greater complexity, and their duties are of a kind which enters into the domestic life of the people of their neighbourhood. Even, however, taking the actual charges and summonses, for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1936, there were 226,755, which was higher than the total for any previous year since 1902, when figures first became available. That, as I have said, takes no account of the complexity of the work. The Criminal Justice Act, 1925, increased their powers and put upon them the duty of trying many more serious cases; they have more cases under the Road Traffic Act, and a large number of traffic cases, while in connection with maintenance orders under the Act of 1920 additional duties have been imposed upon them. They have important duties under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, the Separation and Maintenance Act, the Moneylenders Act, the Betting and Lotteries Act, and various other Acts, while last, but by no means least, their work in connection with the probation system, which is an especially valued feature of their work in London, has cast upon them arduous and continuous labours, as has also the development of juvenile courts. There is, on the same footing as in the case of the county court judges, an unanswerable case for putting the salaries of these responsible gentlemen on a basis which bears some relation to the rewards of their profession at the present time, and some relation to the responsibilities which they have to bear.
It will be observed that the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates enjoys a salary which is £300 more than that of the rest of his colleagues. That is a state of affairs which exists by Statute, and has continued since 1839. The chief magistrate has many administrative duties to perform. He correlates the work of the magistrates in London, and he exercises jurisdiction in connection with extradition and other matters where jurisdiction can alone be exercised by the chief magistrate. I have dealt with the only instances in which the Resolution involves an increase of salary; let me now pass to paragraphs (a, iv) and ( b).

Mr. Logan: Would the Solicitor-General tell us why the metropolitan police magistrates should be raised to the status of county court judges by increasing their salaries to £2,000; and also, what the increase really means? He has mentioned, as regards the county court judges, that the increase on the present salary includes a bonus remnant of £150. What is the addition in the case of the magistrates?

The Solicitor-General: I ought to have said that the increase in the case of the magistrates is the same as in the case of the county court judges, namely, £350 for the chief magistrate and for all the other magistrates too. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am afraid I cannot have made myself sufficiently clear. What I intended to submit was that the London metropolitan police magistrates have been drawn from the same field as the county court judges since the inception of the offices. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the same area of people to draw upon; the offices are comparable; the duties in each case have been increased in the way that I have been trying to describe; and we feel that, when an increase is being suggested in the case of the county court judges, there is no case for making a distinction between the remuneration of the two offices.

Mr. Logan: I thought I understood the Solicitor-General to say that there was some difference in the scale.

The Solicitor-General: They are to get the same amount, namely, £2,000 a year. At the present time they get £1,500, plus bonus £150, the only exception being the


chief magistrate of the metropolitan district, who has these extra administrative duties to perform. He has to see to the administration of the magisterial bench in London, and also has extra duties under various Acts of Parliament which he alone can discharge. He has always enjoyed the extra amount ever since 1839.
With regard to the rather formidable-looking paragraph (a, iv), which deals with the Recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, the position is perfectly simple. There is no suggestion of any increase in regard to any of these offices; the Resolution will merely regularise the position. They are drawing their existing salaries together with their bonuses, and the bonuses are subject to the criticism of the Exchequer and Audit Department in the way that I have been describing. The position at present is unsatisfactory. These gentlemen are existing officers who are retained on the Consolidated Fund by the Act of 1920. That Act provided that the then existing holders of these offices should be borne on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain. After they have ceased to hold these offices, the new occupants will be borne on the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. These gentlemen were the holders of the offices in 1920, and it is only in respect of them that the position will be regularised.

Mr. Logan: Does, that mean that the salaries have been raised; and, if so, can the Solicitor-General tell us how long the higher salaries have been in existence?

The Solicitor-General: These are salaries which have been fixed by Statute for a considerable period. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly when they were fixed, but they have been fixed for a great many years, like those of the county court judges and police magistrates. They are enjoying a bonus at the present time, and the only proposal we are making is that the bonus and salary should be consolidated together. They are not to be given any increase in remuneration at all, and the arrangement will only apply to the present holders of the offices, for whom we have still responsibility under the Act of 1920.
Let me now pass to paragraph (b) of the Resolution. This is not for the purpose of fixing salaries at all. I have dealt with the two proposals that involve the expenditure of money, namely, those in regard to the county court judges and the police court magistrates. The total expenditure involved in respect of both these classes is estimated at £35,000 a year. What is proposed in paragraph (b) is not to fix salaries, but to remove certain statutory limits which exist at the present time and which are unduly fettering on those who have to fill the appointments. The offices concerned are those of the members of the Scottish Land Court, High Court judges' clerks, permanent Commissioners of Crown Lands, the Lord Lyon of Scotland, the Lyon Clerk of Scotland, and the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Scotland. Taking, for example, the members of the Scottish Land Court, at the present time their salaries are limited to £1,200, and there is a supplementary payment of £160 19s., which again is subject to the very just and pertinent observations of the Public Accounts Office, which are reiterated from year to year. The total remuneration is thus £1,360 19s. —

Mr. Ammon: The chairman gets £1,950.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is right; the chairman gets £1,950. I do not think we are dealing with the chairman under the Resolution—

Mr. Westwood: Yes.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is so. In all these cases there is no proposal that the salaries should be increased; the Resolution is for the purpose of regularising the bonus position and giving greater flexibility for the future. In future the salaries of those who are remunerated under this sub-paragraph will be fixed in all cases by the Treasury, with the exception of the salaries of the High Court judges' clerks, which will be fixed by the Treasury in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That arrangement is believed to offer greater flexibility. There is a provision that existing holders of the offices are not to suffer a diminution of what they are receiving at the present time. Subject to that proviso, the position will be that in future, if this part of the Resolution is passed, it will be open to the Treasury to obtain the best people


they can get at the market rate without being hamstrung by the salaries being either forced up to a figure higher than is necessary, or being forced to less than the actual amount that is really called for.

Mr. Logan: With regard to the salaries of £1,200, plus £160 19s., am I to understand that the position is to be regularised by Act of Parliament, and that there will be no increase of salary beyond the regularisation of salary inclusive of the £160?

The Solicitor-General: That is so. Let me give a few figures to the hon. Member. Take the simple case of High Court judges' clerks. Their salary at the present time is fixed by Statute at £400, and in addition they receive a supplementary payment of doubtful validity of £115 18s. That brings their total remuneration to £515 18s. What is proposed is, if the Committee pass this part of the Resolution, not that there is to be any increase above that amount, but no present holder of that office is to have his salary reduced. What we provide is that the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, may fix the salary from time to time.

Mr. Westwood: Am I to understand that the purpose of paragraph (b) of the Resolution is to regularise the payment as far as the judges' clerks of the High Court of Scotland is concerned at £515 18s., but that there may be some reduction as regards future holders of that office?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think we deal with Scotland. The proposal does not deal with the clerks of judges in Scotland, but with the judges' clerks of the High Court of England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be able to answer any questions that may arise in regard to Scotland. The intention is to regularise the bonus in the first instance. I think we are all agreed that it is desirable to do that. We have done away with the bonus in the Civil Service, by regularising it. It would not be candid of me if I suggested that this arrangement did not leave the path open to an increase of salaries on some future occasion if that became necessary. The arrangement is to provide that in future the salary is to be determined by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury in regard to judges' clerks, while in regard to other offices the Treasury is

to be in the position to determine the salary instead of having this cumbersome machinery and of having the salaries of comparatively minor offices in some cases fixed rigidly by Statute.

Mr. Logan: I take it that there will be no danger of surcharge, and that the regularisation by Parliament will settle the question?

The Solicitor-General: There will be no danger of surcharge, but the Treasury, cautious as ever in these matters, takes good care to regularise the position by seeing appropriate provision is made in the Appropriation Bill. There is no danger of anyone suffering. These amounts are put into the Appropriation Bill and the House of Commons does not in advance have discussions on these sums, but only ex post facto when the amounts have been voted.

Mr. Cassells: The Solicitor-General has pointed out that the salaries paid to High Court judges' clerks can in no circumstances exceed £400, plus £115 18s., amounting in total to £515 18s. and yet we find the following words in the Resolution:
and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury
I assume that the only intelligent interpretation to be placed upon that statement is that the £515 18s. could undoubtedly be exceeded.

The Solicitor-General: I did not say anything to the contrary. The hon. Member misunderstood what I was saying. The intention is to leave these salaries to be determined by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Treasury, and not to leave them as they are at the present time a fixed statutory amount. There is not a great deal of common sense in fixing the salary of a judge's clerk by Statute at £400. What I said, or what I meant to say, was that the existing holders cannot have their salaries diminished, but it will in future be open to the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor in regard to judges' clerks to make the arrangement that is proper in the circumstances then prevailing, and not to be fettered by a statutory limit as at the present time. There is no immediate further expenditure contem-


plated or anticipated in future, as far as one can see, in regard to any of these offices. It is merely a question of making the position more flexible and regularising the matter of bonus. Hon. and right hon. Members have had before them a White Paper issued in explanation of the Resolution. With regard to the Scottish part of the Resolution, any matters which are of interest to Scotland will be dealt with by the Lord Advocate. For the reason that I have given, that the time is long overdue for these adjustments to be made in regard to the salaries of county court judges and police magistrates, I submit that part of the Resolution with confidence. The rest of the Resolution is merely tidying-up machinery to regularise a position which is not satisfactory, and to give greater freedom in regard to minor salaries.

4.37 P.m.

Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. There are three Amendments on the Order Paper. Is it your intention not to call any of those Amendments?

The Deputy-Chairman: All those Amendments are out of order.

Mr. Batey: With due deference, may I point out that the first Amendment in my name deals with the family means test applied to unemployed persons? The increase of salaries proposed in the Resolution will come out of the public purse. The argument that is used for the continuance of the means test is that allowances are being paid from the public purse. Seeing that in both cases the public purse is affected, why cannot I be allowed to move that Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: That might be a ground for an argument by the hon. Member against the Resolution, but it has long been the practice of this House that when the House goes into Committee under Standing Order 69 no Amendment that is a reasoned Amendment is permissible. The Amendments on the Order Paper are of an argumentative nature, and are out of order.

Mr. Batey: Are we to understand that we can argue the means test on this Resolution?

4.39 P.m.

Mr. Stephen: May I submit that these Amendments are not argumentative but

temporal Amendments? They are Amendments providing that this new arrangement in regard to salaries should come into operation at a certain time. They are simply fixing a time limit. The proposal is that the Financial Resolution should come into effect after a certain time, that time being when certain other legislation has taken place.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is precisely why the Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Stephen: I understood you to say that the reason why the Amendment was out of order was that this Amendment and the other Amendments were reasoned Amendments, but I am submitting that they are not reasoned Amendments but temporal Amendments. It is not reason that they can be both at the same time.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. If the Amendment had been a definite postponement, then it would not be a reasoned Amendment, but it is an indefinite proposal on the assumption of something else happening. It is, therefore, a reasoned Amendment, and cannot be accepted.

Mr. Stephen: I am submitting that it is a definite time postponement—neither more nor less. I fail to see how it can be considered as anything else but a postponement in time.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have given the matter very careful consideration, and I must adhere to my decision.

Mr. Westwood: I understood you to say that no reasoned Amendment could be accepted on a Resolution of this kind. May I submit that the third Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston)—in line 5, after "Wales," to insert" and sheriff substitutes in Scotland"—although not a reasoned Amendment seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment. It suggests that when we are dealing with the Scottish question as contained in paragraph (b) this is an Amendment that ought to be discussed, because it seeks to bring within the scope of the Resolution sheriff substitutes in Scotland, who have even greater responsibilities than those which have been put forward so far as certain judges in England are concerned.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment to which the hon. Members refers is out of order, because if it has any effect it would impose a charge that is not authorised by the King's Recommendation.

Mr. Batey: I understood you to say that no reasoned Amendments can be moved to this Resolution. That comes to some of us as a great surprise, because we believed that in dealing with this Resolution we could move Amendments. In order that we may have time to quote cases, I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. Stephen: Would an Amendment be in order which sought to provide that this Resolution should only come into effect
after a period of five years or after the family means test which applies to unemployed persons has been abolished
That would impose a definite time limit, and I submit that such an Amendment could be accepted. I, therefore, ask whether the hon. Member in whose name the first Amendment on the Paper stands, would be allowed to alter it in that way?

The Deputy-Chairman: I would like to see such an Amendment in writing before expressing any opinion upon it.

Mr. Westwood: Is the only alternative left to Scottish Members under your Ruling, Captain Bourne, to vote against the Resolution on the ground that no provision is made for sheriff substitutes in Scotland?

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be a good ground for voting against the Resolution, but I do hot wish to be understood as committing myself in any way on the question of whether sheriff substitutes would properly be dealt with under this Resolution. I do not know. All I am saying is, that if statutory authority is required to raise the salary of sheriff substitutes, then an Amendment dealing with them would be outside the scope of the King's Recommendation of this Resolution. If, on the contrary, their salaries can be raised without statutory authority, then their inclusion in such a Resolution as this would be unnecessary.

Mr. Cassells: May I ask whether you will allow hon. Members on this side to refer to the salaries paid to sheriff substitutes in Scotland in arguing against the Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman: I should like to hear the arguments first.

Mr. Batey: Did I understand you to say that we could argue the means test on this Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not certain what the hon. Member means by arguing the means test. If he means that he can instance the existence of the means test as a reason why this Resolution should not be accepted, he would be in order in doing so, but if he tried to argue the details of the means test then, obviously, he would be going far beyond the Resolution before us.

Mr. Batey: We can get over that.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: The House is indebted to the Solicitor-General for a statement which left nothing to be desired as far as clarity of expression was concerned. I suggest, nevertheless, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not technically accurate when he said that the increase of salary proposed in this Resolution is one of £380 a year. As far as I can make out, it is a flat rate increase of £500 a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, carried into his calculations the residue of the war bonus, but that was not a permanent addition to the salary. It had to be approved from time to time by Parliament and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that it did not carry with it superannuation rights as would a permanent addition to salary. In considering a flat rate increase of £500 per year, we have to remember that the superannuation of these judges and magistrates is on very much the same basis as that of the Civil Service, and in that connection I imagine the factor which I have just mentioned must be taken into consideration.
It is not usual for Members of the party which occupies these benches to oppose payments of salary or remuneration for necessary work which is properly and adequately performed. I need only point to those places where the Labour party is in control of the municipal authorities to show that they have never hesitated


to pay adequately for professional and technical advice on the understanding that they got full value for their money. The opposition to the present proposal is based largely on the ground that there is no certainty that we are getting the best possible return for the money paid. There is also a general feeling that these appointments are not wholly free from the suspicion of political patronage and, further, there is a feeling that this is a most inopportune time at which to bring before Parliament a proposal to increase the salaries of those who are already fairly well remunerated. This proposal comes before us at a time when many of the population are suffering a reduction in their standard of living, and are finding it hard to get consideration from Parliament for such questions as that of payments to the unemployed. Those are points which have to be taken into consideration, and the Amendments which appear on the Paper, even though, it appears, they cannot be moved, do to a certain extent indicate the feeling in the Committee.
There is another consideration which cannot be overlooked. As far as the county court judges are concerned, there is a possibility that their work in some branches may be diminished. One admits readily that in recent years it has increased, and also that it is highly technical work and of importance to the community. But it is not out of the question that the volume of this work may decrease. For instance, under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Act, and even under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, it is suggested that there may be a diminution in the number of cases brought before the courts.
I look at this question from the point of view of the ordinary layman. I see trade unionists on both sides of the Committee who will, no doubt, deal with technical aspects of the matter, and I do not complain at that in connection with this profession, any more than I would in connection with any other profession. The first question which I put to the Solicitor-General is: Can we have any assurance that those who are best qualified in the profession will be appointed to these positions? The legal profession is one in which there are some large plums. It is also one in which there is a good deal of competition, and it is prob-

ably, to some extent, overcrowded. I gather from the conversation of some of my legal friends that even fairly successful banisters would not look askance at an assured income of £2,000 a year, and that there is an uncertainty in connection with general practice at the Bar, to say nothing of the work involved in getting up briefs, and so forth. I, therefore, ask what assurance we have that the best possible recruits will be, in open competition as it were, appointed to these positions?
I do not know whether there is any truth in a statement which is freely circulated, but I, as a lay justice of the Peace, know it is common talk in certain circles that many of the persons appointed to these positions have been, to say the least of it, not the most successful in their profession. It is suggested that they are in many cases persons who have had some political pull, with the result that somebody has obligingly put them on to a permanent source of income. If the Committee is to agree to this Resolution, we ought to have an assurance that that kind of thing is not going to operate any more. In regard to positions like this, with stabilised salaries of not less than £2,000 a year, Parliament and the country have a right to expect that only the best available persons shall fill those positions.
It is true that civil servants have had part of their bonus consolidated with their salaries or wages, but I doubt whether there is any case in which civil servants have actually had the remaining portion of their War bonus increased and then carried into the consolidated salary as is here proposed. I wonder what justification there is for giving these gentlemen a consideration over and above that extended to other salaried civil servants by treating them in this favourable way. I have some remembrance that when the cuts took place these gentlemen accepted with less grace than any others the reductions made in their salaries. They protested most vigorously, both at the time and later on, against being asked to do the same as other members of the community after the trouble of 1931.

Mr. Magnay: Is the hon. Member sure of that? Was it not only the judges of the High Court who complained about the cuts?

Mr. Ammon: I am open to correction. I was speaking as far as my memory served. One is aware that there is considerable pressure in the county courts, and that that is like a barometric indication of the position of trade and industry generally, affecting other walks of life. The mere fact that these gentlemen are over-burdened with work is an indication that other members of the community are suffering considerably at the present time. Other citizens who are feeling the economic pinch of hard times may look with disfavour on a proposal that this favoured class, at this inopportune moment, should have their salaries increased. I submit that it was ill-advised to bring forward this proposal at a time when so many other equally deserving citizens are being subjected to all sorts of indignities and inquiries into their means, and when even those who are in employment are suffering from an increase in the cost of living. That increase will become more marked if the policy recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a big loan for increased armaments is carried into effect. One inevitable effect of that policy will be to send up the cost of living. The people dealt with in this Resolution are being prepared in advance for such a catastrophe, whereas in the case of the ordinary wage earner the axiom applies that wages always follow prices—often a long way behind. [An HON. MEMBER: "They never catch up!"]
There is a good deal of feeling on this side of the Committee, which is quite understandable, at this proposition that something like 56 county court judges and 26 metropolitan stipendiaries should have increases of £500 a year in their salaries. How will that proposition be regarded by men and women who are equally deserving and in their way equally valuable to the community; who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed, and who have to suffer indignities before they can get enough to keep body and soul together? Surely, in the present circumstances, it is not wise to give colour to certain suggestions which have been made. Ever since this Government have been in it has been doling out largesse to favoured sections of the community by way of tariffs or in some other way, and this seems to be an addition in that respect.
It is also as well to bear in mind that proposals like this seem to take for granted certain theories which in these days can no longer be accepted, the assumption, for instance, that there is a definite difference of standard of living and well-being between certain sections of the community which can never be bridged or overcome. The sort of thing which cannot be maintained and is not tolerable in these days is the suggestion that, no matter what happens in regard to the economic position of other persons, in the community, a certain section must not suffer in any way in their standard of living. The whole difference between people such as these and those that one has already called into comparison is that, when they feel any difference, it does not affect what one calls the cost of living, but the luxury margin of it, which is an entirely different thing from that which falls on the ordinary citizen when the cost of living rises. The War bonus is supposed to have kept pace to see that they suffered no diminution in their income as far as the standard of living is concerned. In that they have been favoured over and above the rest of the ordinary community hitherto. Other members of the community have had to suffer the rise and fall caused by the play of economic forces, not a little of which has been promoted by the policy of the Government itself. It is not unfair to say that one objects to seeing what one might call the luxury margin of certain members of the community mounting at a time when the ordinary living margin of the rest of the community is being depressed. From that point of view we offer pretty strong criticism and objection.
On the other hand, it is elementary economics that, had a similar or even a larger sum of money been expended in raising the standard of wages or salaries of ordinary workers, the effect on the community as a whole would have been of very much greater benefit, for you would have the money expended on things that are necessary for the maintenance of industry and for the well-being of the rest of the community. Here it means that it is going to be expended on that margin over and above this. It is asking the House to accept as an axiom that there is always going to be a difference in the standard of living of different sections of the community, that one section must have a right to claim only a bare standard


of living, while another shall always claim the right to a considerable margin over and above that. It is for these reasons that we feel that we cannot support this proposition. We want, first of all, an assurance that the persons who will be appointed to these positions will be those with the best qualifications to fill them, that there will be no falling off in the work that they will be called upon to perform, and, at the same time, we cannot consent to it while there is such an utter disregard of the claims of the smaller salary and wage earners, and particularly of the indignities that are still imposed upon those who, through no fault of their own, are in the army of the unemployed, to which they have to go in order that they may gain the bare necessities of life.
It will be said with truth that it is no fair argument to say that, because some people are suffering hardships, you should not to a certain extent help other people. There would be something in that argument if the margins were nearer together, but, apart from that, one cannot but take cognisance of the fact that it is not a case of being selfish and looking with jealous eyes on those who have more, but a mere protest at the expenditure of public money in giving increases of salary to persons who are already highly remunerated while so many millions of our people are going short, or living on the border line of sheer necessity. For that reason it may be necessary to ask my friends, and I hope others, to register their votes against this proposal.

5.7 P.m.

Mr. Keeling: Although I should not be in order in proposing any increase in the salaries mentioned in the Resolution, I should like to express my regret that the Government have not proposed a higher rate than £2,000 for county court judges. There are lawyers on both sides of the Committee who are much better able to argue this point than I am, but who may, perhaps, feel a natural diffidence in suggesting an increase of salary for posts for which conceivably they might one day be candidates. Therefore, though not a practising lawyer, I venture to step into the breach. County court justice now is cheap and it is swift. It is of the utmost importance that it should also be good, and that is in the interest not least of the poor men about whom the hon. Member who has just spoken was so

eloquent. It is, therefore, essential that the county court bench should attract first-rate men, and all that the hon. Gentleman opposite has just said seems to me irrelevant in the light of that governing consideration. I suggest that £2,000 is not adequate to attract first-rate men.
As my hon. and learned Friend stated, the salaries of county court judges were fixed at £1,500 in 1865. In the intervening 70 years two things have happened. In the first place, an enormous increase has taken place in their jurisdiction, both in its range and in its importance. Their work now covers almost the whole field of law and equity, and it is not too much to say that the county court judge has to know as much law as the House of Lords. It follows, I think, that we want more experienced and abler men than we wanted in 1865, when the duties and responsibilities were so much less. The other thing that has happened is that there has been a large increase in the cost of living and in taxation, and it is safe to say that £2,000 in the present year will not attract as good a man as £1,500 did in 1865.
This Resolution proposes the same salary of £2,000 for county court judges as for Metropolitan magistrates. That is not an increase of £500 as the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said, but only £350, because at present they are getting £1,650. In saying that county court judges should receive more than £2,000, it is difficult for me to avoid a comparison with Metropolitan magistrates, though I am not seeking to belittle the work of Metropolitan magistrates. Perhaps £2,000 does no more than justice to them, but it certainly does less than justice to county court judges. The Solicitor-General has pointed out that a great deal of extra work has been thrown on Metropolitan magistrates, but their functions have not been enlarged to the same extent and their powers are not comparable with those of county court judges. The duties of county court judges require a far wider knowledge of law than those of Metropolitan magistrates and it would be reasonable to give them a salary of £2,500, which is half the salary of the High Court judges. However, half a loaf is better than no bread and I shall vote for the Resolution.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: Usually proposals of this kind are taken the last thing at night and


rushed through at 12 o'clock. I am grateful that this Resolution has been brought on early in the day. I want to pay a compliment to the county court judges for the way they deal with compensation cases. We miners' agents who have to attend the courts recognise the skill with which they watch the workmen's interest. Coming to the real question, I notice a clean-cut division between hon. Members opposite and ourselves. When the Solicitor-General said that this was long overdue, his statement was applauded. I never hear them cheer when we are pleading for the poor people. They do not say anything, but they vote against all the appeals that are made. It is always, "The country cannot afford it," "It is so stupendous that it would be very difficult to meet the cost," and we get little or no support. There may be one or two but, generally speaking, very few support us. When it comes to a question of highly-paid officials, it is always "long overdue" and "We cannot get the best men unless greater payment is made" There is not a Member in the House, whatever his salary is, who would refuse the offer of a judgeship. It is not merely a question of money, for it is considered to be one of the greatest positions in the land. That is why very few people would, refuse the offer of a judgeship. I always have in mind, when I listen to speeches of hon. Members opposite who are practised in the law, that they are perhaps playing up for a judgeship and trying to impress the Prime Minister with their ability as lawyers, so that possibly when an appointment has to be made, they may be successful. Most of the persons to fill these positions are chosen from hon. Members opposite. I recollect only one being chosen from this side. I do not know whether it is because many hon. Members on this side are not considered to have the ability or that they are not sufficiently trained in the law. But we have to consider the disparity between the various sections of the community.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will not take what I say the wrong way, when I tell him that he has not done himself justice to-day. I do not think he prepared his case very well. When he was the occupant of one of the back benches he was always very lucid when he had any arguments to put forward, but this afternoon he was not as clear as I would

have liked him to be. There were a few things in regard to which he did not give information, and I hope that they will be cleared up later. One of these points was the question of expenses. The salary of county court judges, who receive £1,650 a year, will be raised to £2,000, an increase of 21 per cent. That is a tremendous advance. When we are fighting for working men in order to try to obtain an increase in their wages of 5 per cent., or something like that, we are urged to accept what is offered and told that we might do worse. In this case an increase of 21 per cent. Is being given to a body of people who are not in need.
The present salary of the Chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate is £1,952 and he is to receive £2,300, an increase of £348, about 18 per cent. This sort of thing will mean ultimately the expenditure of £35,000, and taking the round figure of £350 as the increase to about 100 persons, it makes the amount very important, and we have to make comparisons with what other people receive. I have the pensions anomaly in mind. We have brought up the matter from time to time and have urged upon the House of Commons the necessity of doing something in this direction. Every time we put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the Financial Secretary, we are told what a tremendous burden it will mean. It is not argued that the people are not in need of the money, but it is a question of what it will mean to the Treasury. Yet now and again we are asked to grant various sums of money to various people. A few weeks ago we were asked to grant small sums amounting to £3,000 to traffic commissioners, and to-night we are asked to grant £35,000. We shall on all these occasions take the opportunity of raising our voices in protest.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that we should oppose this proposal, because I had made up my mind that, whatever the Front Bench did on the matter, I should go into the Lobby against the Resolution as I shall on all such occasions. It is not because I am against judges being well paid, for they deserve all they can get, but it is as a protest against what has been done to other people with regard to pensions and


the means test. These things constantly come to mind, but we cannot get the Government to see our point of view. It is always said that they cannot afford it. To-night I shall go into the Lobby to register my protest, not against the work that the judges do, for which I have the highest regard, but against the way our people are treated whenever we urge their claims and the Government say that they cannot afford the money.

5.22 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am not playing up for a judgeship, which is entirely out of my line, so that any remarks that I make may be put aside on that score. I entirely appreciate what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said. I understand his point of view entirely, but I do not agree with it, because in this matter we have to take the men we can get now upon the market, and pay for them. That is the reason for the advance in the standard of pay. If there were as many competent people as there are miners, I daresay that we should not want to pay the judges very large fees. On the other hand, it is very important that the judges should be well paid, and be above temptation and able to live a dignified life. I support the Resolution. The increase of the salaries of stipendiaries and county court judges is long overdue, as the learned Solicitor-General has said. I welcome these remedial measures, although they are late.
Comparisons are odious, and I do not want in any way to enter into the details of the duties of county court judges and stipendiaries. My attention has been drawn, however, to a considerable number of Press cuttings from various legal newspapers and others drawing attention to the difference in the duties and jurisdiction exercised by those two classes of people. I do not think that that is quite fair. Suppose a county court judge does not do well in a particular part of the country, he may be moved to another part, but a stipendiary magistrate cannot be moved, and, therefore, you have to treat the stipendiary magistrates and the county court judges upon rather different lines. It might well be said that the county court judge has much more work to do and has longer hours, and should be a man of very much wider knowledge

than the stipendiary. On the other hand, the stipendiary has to be a particular class of man not only learned in the law, but a particularly good-natured man. In police courts with which I have had to do he has to have a sympathetic nature and has to listen to the poor people who come before him. He must be able to appreciate the lives they may be living and to put himself into that sort of position.
I have many extracts from the legal papers to the contrary, but I do not propose to weary the Committee by reading them. Obviously, the objection is on the question of principle. It is not so much the amount as the question of principle. As was stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, the salary of county court judges was fixed in 1865 and there have been practically no increases. The work is really enormous. The hours of county court judges are very long indeed, and they have a great amount of new jurisdiction. They have to take up Chancery, Admiralty and bankruptcy cases, even perhaps more than High Court judges have to do. High Court judges are divided into various classes. There are Common Law judges, Chancery judges who do Chancery work, and Admiralty judges who do Admiralty work, but in the county court the judges have to do it all. I have taken the trouble to obtain the return for 1936 from the three busiest two-judge courts in the country. In the Manchester Court there were 38,184 plaints issued, and the fees paid to the Treasury amounted to £8,135; at Birmingham the number of plaints was 53,228 and the amount of fees paid to the Treasury £4,521; and in Westminster there were 72,097 plaints, and the amount of fees paid to the Treasury was £38,911. These are extraordinary figures and show that justice is being administered at no very great loss. I do not know how it works out on a profit and loss basis, but certainly there cannot be a great loss; the county court judges are to a great extent paying for themselves. These considerations ought to be taken into account, and I very heartily support the Resolution.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: As a member of the legal profession I would have liked, if possible, to have supported this Resolution, but, frankly, I have been completely unmoved


by the explanation which has been given to us from the Government Front Bench. This is the Government of all Governments which has become infamous in so far as its policy is concerned in putting public funds into the pockets of persons who, in point of fact, do not need them. Yet when we on this side of the Committee come to the Government and ask, not for £35,000, but for quite trivial requests, we are repeatedly turned down on the ground of finance. To give a typical illustration of why I cannot support the Resolution, only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with a case arising in my own constituency where men are compelled to travel from one parish to another three days each week to the Employment Exchange in order to collect the small pittance they get. Their travelling expenses are 3s. per head, and I put the reasonable proposition that a small Employment Exchange should be erected in the village. The answer was, "No, we cannot do it because it will cost too much." Yet the Government to-day ask hon. Members on this side to support a Financial Resolution increasing the salaries of English county court judges and stipendiary magistrates by no less than £35,000.
Let me put this question to the Government. Can they say honestly and frankly that in their financial policy they are treating all sections of the community on an equal basis? If they can prove conclusively to me that they are, I will support the Resolution. But they are not. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, out of order an Amendment dealing with Scotland. I do not know why it was ruled out of order, but I assume that I am entitled, for the purpose of my argument, to direct the attention of the Committee to the salaries paid at present to sheriff substitutes in Scotland. The Minister who spoke on behalf of the Government based his argument for this increase on the volume of the work, but I can assure the Committee that the work performed by sheriff substitutes in Scotland as compared with that performed by English county court judges is far greater, much more onerous and much more responsible. That is not merely an ex parte statement by me. No doubt the Lord Advocate will be able to confirm or repudiate the statement I am about to make. For example, sheriff substitutes

in Scotland deal with all kinds of civil actions, no matter what their value may be, except such cases as divorce, reduction of heritable title, and one or two other cases which are privy to the Court of Session. They deal with bankruptcy and workmen's compensation claims.
I asked the Solicitor-General whether it was a fact that arbitration cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts were declining. I cannot speak with regard to England, but I can say that so far as Scotland is concerned the number of arbitrations—I do not mean the cases to which the Solicitor-General referred, cases which ultimately go before two referees—cases which actually go to proof before the judge of first instance, is definitely falling. I trust the Lord Advocate will be able to give us specific information as to whether similar circumstances apply also to England. Sheriff substitutes deal also with fatal accidents—

Mr. Stephen: I should like your advice, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Is it in order to discuss sheriff substitutes in Scotland on this Resolution? There is nothing in it dealing with sheriff substitutes in Scotland.

Mr. Westwood: Is it not in order to discuss omissions when you are debating a Financial Resolution in order to give your reasons for voting against it?

Mr. Cassells: In order to assure the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I can assure the Committee that I am only using the Scottish position as an argument.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I had better deal with the point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) to say that he was bringing in the position of sheriff substitutes in Scotland as a comparison with the proposed rates in England. That would appear to be in order, but at the same time I thought he was going a little wider than that.

Mr. Stephen: I want to be quite clear on the point. Amendments have been ruled out of order, but I understand that they may be brought in as illustrating the comparison with the position in England, but that the hon. Member cannot press for similar treatment for sheriff substi-


tutes in Scotland and get a reply from the Lord Advocate? Am I right in my submission? They can be brought in only as an illustration.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that is necessarily so, but I would rather hear the argument before I give a definite ruling.

Mr. Cassells: For the purpose of my argument I am referring to the work performed by sheriff substitutes in Scotland, and I maintain that it is as great as that performed by county court judges in England, to whom increases are being made under the Financial Resolution. I do not see how there can be any justification for the suggestion that the argument is irrelevant. I will leave my argument on this point, that Scottish sheriff substitutes at least do as much work as English county court judges. A few weeks ago I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the position to be taken up by the Government with regard to sheriff substitutes. Since then absolutely nothing has been done. At the present moment I do not know what is to be done, but I assume, having regard to the terms of this Resolution—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot drag in the question that sheriff substitutes should be included in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Cassells: The only point is that Scotland to a limited extent is dealt with in the Financial Resolution because it refers to the salaries payable to members of the Scottish Land Court.

Mr. Stephen: I am rather worried about the position into which we have got. We are to be asked to vote for or against the Resolution. A similar situation occurs in Scotland with regard to officials who are in practically the same position, but it means that we cannot get any information as to what is to happen in Scotland, and we cannot decide whether we should vote for or against the Resolution until we know the position in Scotland. I am wondering how we are going to get this necessary information, and whether it will be possible for the Lord Advocate to say that there will be a similar Financial Resolution for Scotland.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member must use his great Parliamentary experience to answer his own question.

Mr. Cassells: At the present moment we cannot possibly say what is to be the position of sheriff substitutes, but I am assuming that the Government intend to do nothing. What salaries are payable to Scottish sheriff substitutes? We find that Scotland is divided into four different groups, Glasgow, with 1,500; Aberdeen with 1,300—

Sir William Davison: Surely this cannot be illustrating the argument?

Mr. Cassells: Banff with 1,044; and the Dornoch district with 850. If the Government say that they will consider the Scottish position we can see our way to support the Resolution, and I trust that the Lord Advocate in his reply will give us some hint that the Scottish position will receive sympathetic consideration from the Government.

5.41 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I rise for the limited purpose of clearing away certain misconceptions which appear to affect the minds of hon. Members opposite. As I wish to avoid transgressing the rules of Order, although I confess that I am a little puzzled to know how far I can go, let me say at once, in answer to the hon. Member, that the Resolution now before the Committee is concerned with salaries the amount of which is fixed by Statute. So far as sheriff substitutes in Scotland are concerned the amount of their salaries is not fixed by Statute and, accordingly, they have no relevancy to the present Resolution or the present discussion. Beyond that I think I may simply say that I have no reason, broadly speaking, to challenge what the hon. Member has said regarding the comparison between Scottish sheriff substitutes and English county court judges, but by way of relieving the apprehensions of any hon. Members whose support of this Resolution may be withheld because of their doubts as to what is to happen, may I say that from the time when the question of the salaries of county court judges and the other officers dealt with in the Resolution was first raised it was fully recognised that a revision would have to be made of the salaries of other


officials in comparable positions whose salaries were not fixed by Statute? I assure the Committee that a revision, so far as sheriff substitutes and sheriffs are concerned, is in progress, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given an assurance that when the figures are adjusted consultation will take place with the representatives of the Association of Sheriff Substitutes. With that explanation I think Scottish Members will realise that their fears are groundless and that the Resolution may therefore be considered on its merits.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: The statement just made by the Lord Advocate, that the salaries payable to sheriff substitutes in Scotland, who are doing equal if not more onerous work involving greater responsibilities than county court judges in England, will be considered, will be very acceptable to Scottish Members, who had a feeling of uneasiness that the Resolution was going to create an altogether invidious and indefensible inferiority in salaries as far as sheriff substitutes in Scotland were concerned. I noticed with keen interest the way in which this Resolution was introduced to the Committee. With an extraordinarily sweet reasonableness, the Solicitor-General tried to palm off on the Committee this particular Resolution and to give the Committee only a minimum of information. There are one or two questions I would like to ask as to the cost. Before the Committee comes to a decision, we are entitled to know what will be the cost to the country of this particular Resolution when it is carried out. For instance, we were not told the number of county court judges in England and Wales who are to have their salaries increased, and we were not told the number of chiefs of the Metropolitan police magistrates. As a matter of fact, I understand there is only one chief magistrate. We have not, however, received any figures from the Solicitor-General as to the actual cost of the proposals that are now before the Committee. I presume that we shall be able to get that information now that we have asked for it.
The second point I wish to make is that, having received only a minimum of information, I am not prepared to admit, as a layman, that salary, and salary alone, will enable us to get the best type of judge, either county court judge or sheriff substitute in Scotland. I am satisfied that

in many instances the ordinary layman could mete out justice in a far better way than some of those who in the past, and possibly even at present, are occupying the positions we are discussing now. My third point is that there is a special reference in the Resolution to the Scottish Land Court and to the Lyon King of Arms. As the representative of a Scottish constituency, I am pleased that something is to be done to regularise the salaries in the Land Court. The Land Court of Scotland, when established, was an honest attempt to get a court of equity to deal with rural subjects in Scotland. If there is a good argument for an increase in salaries in the case of county court judges or even sheriff substitutes in Scotland—I do not grant that there is—then there is an equally good argument for an increase in the salaries in the Land Court of Scotland.
I would like to put a question to the Lord Advocate. We have been asked to regularise the salary of the Lyon King of Arms. All I have been able to learn about his work in Scotland in recent months is that he has made a deliberate attempt to prevent the Scottish people from flying a Scottish flag. That seems to be the only thing for which he has been paid in recent months. I would like to know what are his duties. I am anxious to know the cost of that particular post. I am wondering whether economies could not be effected in that direction without any dire effects on Scotland.
We on this side oppose this Resolution because we are being asked to dole out money to those of whom it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that they are in circumstances of poverty and that they cannot get all that is required to give them a decent standard of living. Time and again the Government have asked for more and more money for those who are well paid, whereas every attempt to obtain improved conditions for the poorest of the poor has been rejected by the Government. For those reasons hon. Members on this side oppose this Resolution and will continue to oppose similar Resolutions until we can get some reasonable justice meted out by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to the class to which we belong.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I would like to make one or two observations, because I think I am peculiarly qualified to do so. For


20 years I was inside a county court, and on this occasion I really know what I am talking about. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what capacity?"] As chief clerk, the youngest in England. I was National Secretary of the County Courts Officials' Association. I am amazed by the manner in which hon. Members opposite have approached this very sensible and, if I may say so, belated proposal to increase the salaries of county court judges. May I remind the Committee—for it is not necessary to tell it—why the county courts were founded? The object was to bring justice—in the words if I remember aright of King Alfred, who founded them—to the doors of the common people. As springing from that class myself, the industrial aristocracy, the best breed in the world, I suggest that nothing but the best is good enough for the common people, certainly in regard to justice, for I think every Englishman and certainly every Scotsman will agree that justice is the most sacred word in human speech, coming indeed beforce mercy, because mercy cannot be given until justice is recognised. I suggest that only the best barristers and lawyers should be appointed as county court judges. Many a time I have drawn up and had signed by the sitting judge the appointment of a deputy, and I think the rule then was, if it is not now, that the barrister must be of seven years' proved experience.
To show the ridiculous nature of the opposition—for I must be frank and straightforward—let me point out that the salaries of county court judges were fixed by Statute in 1865, and that the cost of living has gone up immensely since that time. If one makes a comparison—it would be more fair to say a contrast—between wages in 1865 and wages at present, are there any grounds why county court judges should not have their salaries increased at any rate pro rata to the increase in wages since that time? I think that is a fair comparison and a fair argument. Over and above the cost of living, which has been immeasurably increased during the period from 1865 to 1937, there have been changes in legislation. I remember that in 1895 the job of the county court judge was the easiest in the world, but it has since become very complex, with workmen's compensation cases and a thousand and one other things. At that time, there was not a

trust fund in any county court, but when I left 20 years later, my carry-forward cash balance was £14,000, and I had to balance it to a penny for the Treasury auditor. That is only one illustration of the increase in the volume of work of the county court judges. The judges and officials in the county courts received their War bonus only in 1920, and that belated War bonus was in consonance with the niggardly way in which the State has treated those faithful servants.
To show again how ridiculous the opposition is, I ask any hon. Member opposite what are the salaries of county council clerks, or town council clerks? They are far in excess of the salaries of the county court judges. The county court judges have to execute justice, whereas the clerks of county councils or town councils have only organising, executive and administrative work. The county court judge has to sit not only as judge but as jury, and if he is a wise man and there is any doubt as to which way he should give his verdict, he always decides on the facts, on which there is not any appeal, and not on the law. There is another consideration. In Northumberland and Durham, the county court judges are also chairmen of quarter sessions. That is extra work which they have had to do within recent years.

Mr. James Griffiths: It is purely voluntary.

Mr. Magnay: Why should they not have some increase in their salary for the work they have done for years on a voluntary basis? All hon. Members who are lawyers will agree that it is to the advantage to the quarter sessions that competent lawyers should be chairmen.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Committee, in considering this Resolution, should take into account the fact that occasionally the county court judge accepts an invitation from his fellow magistrates to preside at the quarter sessions, and that because he accepts that invitation and serves there, not as a county court judge, but as a magistrate invited by his fellow magistrates to do so, he should have an increase in his salary?

Mr. Magnay: I would like to know the inwardness of the invitation before I answer that question. I would like to know whether it has not been suggested to


him by his Department that it would be to the advantage of the State in general and the county in particular that he should take the office of chairman at the quarter sessions. Placing the monetary aspect on one side, it shows their willingness as public servants to do anything they can in the way of voluntary work for the benefit of the State and the county in which they serve. There is a final point to which I wish to refer, and it is that the fees in county courts have been vastly increased in recent years. I would like to see, not a profit and loss account, for that would be a wrong term, but an account of receipts and expenditure, a statement as to what has been received in fees by the county courts and what has been paid away in salaries to the judges, the registrars and the staffs. I would like to see that account before the Committee can really judge as to whether or not this Resolution is extravagant. I suggest that here we are giving belated consideration to the county court judges who cannot come here to speak for themselves. I have known one or two of them, and I have had the honour and privilege of serving under them. I am speaking from disinterested motives. I think it is fair and reasonable consideration of the county court judges that they should have this adequate salary, which has been so long delayed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I come from the same county as does the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), who has just sat down, and I am very anxious that he should not consider that one is occupying a ridiculous position in opposing this Resolution. Let me tell my hon. Friend one or two reasons why I oppose this Motion and will gladly go into the Lobby to vote against it. The Resolution proposes to increase the salary of county court judges from £1,500 to £2,000 a year and the salaries of magistrates of the Metropolitan police courts also from £1,500 to £2,000. In each of these cases they get a bonus of £165 a year at present. The Resolution also proposes to increase the salary of the chief magistrate of the Metropolitan police court, who is now paid £1,800, to £2,300, and he too is receiving £165 a year bonus. That is a total cost to come out of the country's purse of £35,000. I will not vote against the Resolution to-night on

personal grounds in regard to any single county court judge or other official affected. My objection is bigger than that; it is against the class policy of the Government. The Government can always make out a case if they want to give any money to the wealthy, but they are always at the same time robbing the poorest of the poor, and I object to that policy. The Government are living up to the real Tory reputation, which was described by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), at Nottingham, on 30th January, 1909, when he said of the Tory party:
The party of the rich against the poor, of the classes against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy and the strong against the left-out and the shut-out millions of the weak and poor.
The Government are just living up to that reputation. They are prepared again and again to ask this House to vote money for those who have sufficient already, but at the same time they are prepared to take from the poor every sixpence they can take from them. I am objecting to this £35,000 coming out of the public purse, because the Prime Minister, delivering a speech in Glasgow on 18th November last, said:
When it comes to making payments from the public purse, then the only basis on which such payments can equitably be made is on the basis of need.
Is any hon. Member opposite going to argue to-night that this money should come from the public purse on the basis of need?

Mr. Magnay: Obviously, the Prime Minister was referring to payments to those who were not working. We are talking to-night of salaries for those who are working.

Mr. Batey: For the benefit of the hon. Member opposite, I will re-read what the Prime Minister did say.

Mr. George Griffiths: Yes, say it again, and then they will have it.

Mr. Batey: Well, I think it is worth it. The Prime Minister said:
When it comes to making payments from the public purse, then the only basis on which such payments can equitably be made is on the basis of need.
That was the Prime Minister, not a member of the Labour party. Will any-


body opposite tell me that there is any need in connection with these people? County court judges now have £1,650 a year. Is there any need there for an increase of salary? I fail to realise where the need is. We object to this Resolution just as we objected to the Resolution for the Traffic Commissioners' double pension the other day. We object to these payments on principle. We object to the Government continually being prepared to make payments where there is no need at the same time as they are taking from the poorest of the poor the very last shilling that they can take from them.
The only argument that I have ever heard used in favour of the means test being applied to the unemployed is that the money comes from the public purse. Well, let the Government apply that argument all round, and let them stop making increases of salaries until such time as they can afford from the public purse not to rob the unemployed. I submit that those who are under the means test to-day have a stronger claim to consideration by the Government than anybody else, and that the Government are treating those people in one of the shabbiest ways any Government could treat any body of people. They are proposing under this Resolution to increase the salaries of these rich men, and at the same time we read in to-day's Press that they are making drastic reductions, ridiculous reductions, from the very poorest of the poor. In to-day's "Daily Herald" there is a statement of some sweeping cuts that are being made in Plymouth, and when hon. Members are prepared to vote these increases of salary to these gentlemen who do not need them they should remember these cases:
Some households are losing up to nearly £1 a week.
This is money that is coming from the public purse and that the Government are squeezing from these people in order to give to these rich men. The quotation continues:
Some married couples are to lose 2s. a week in instalments of about 6d. a week.
Single men are being cut by 7s. or more a week in some instances.
A head of a family in which there are several earning members has had his determination reduced from 17s. to 7s. a week.
A man—

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that he is going rather far.

Mr. Batey: I have no intention of discussing the means test.

The Chairman: There are several other matters which the hon. Member must not discuss either.

Mr. Batey: We raised this matter with the occupant of the Chair at the beginning of the discussion, Sir Dennis, and we were given to understand then that, while we could not move an Amendment on the means test, we could use it as an argument.

The Chairman: I happened to be within hearing at that time, but whether that was the case or not, it is true that the hon. Member can refer to certain matters without debating or discussing them at length. It is clear, however, that the unpleasant duty of the Chair came in, and that I had to tell the hon. Member that I thought he had gone far enough.

Mr. Batey: I have no intention of discussing the means test in face of the Ruling given by a former occupant of the Chair; I have no intention of breaking that Ruling. As a matter of fact, I prepared my speech on the means test, and the difficulty is to pick pieces out, but what I was doing at the moment when you called me to order, Sir Dennis, was to show the severe cuts that have taken place in regard to people who are paid from the public purse in Plymouth. If those cuts have been taking place at the moment, the House is not justified at the same time in increasing the salaries of men who have already got quite sufficient to live on. What I object to in the policy of the Government is that they stand for the rich classes, that they depend upon the rich classes, and that they are prepared to pay the rich classes, and all the time they are trying to rob the poor. Against that we protest as strongly as we can protest.
Those who need the first consideration are the poor. You talk about county court judges being hard-worked and not being paid sufficient, but consideration should be given not so much to county court judges as to the people who have to go to the county court for justice. It is the people who are forced to go to the


county court through poverty that this House should consider, and until the House is prepared to give some consideration to these people we shall object to all these Resolutions. When the Government come forward to increase the salaries of Cabinet Ministers, we shall oppose that on principle. We say that the first people who should have consideration from this House are the poor of this country, and until they get that consideration we shall oppose grants to everybody else.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Bull: In supporting this Resolution, I agree with those hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House that the increases in salaries proposed in this Resolution are long overdue. In so far as the county court judges are concerned, the learned Solicitor-General has told us that there has been no change in their statutory salaries since 1865, although various Bills to increase their salaries have been introduced since that date but they have never reached the Statute Book. The learned Solicitor-General also told us that the bonus reached its maximum of, I think he said, £750 at or shortly after the end of the War, and I believe that it is correct to say that the net income enjoyed by county court judges is less now than it has been for 70 years. I am open to correction on that statement, but I believe that that is the case. While there have been no changes in the statutory salaries of county court judges, there has been an enormous increase in the work which they have to do as the result of the increase in their jurisdiction and the number of cases heard. There is also a decline in the value of money since these salaries were fixed, and an enormous increase in taxation. I do not think we can emphasise too much the importance that we should attach to the fact that the Lord Chancellor should have the best men at the Bar on whom to draw for these appointments. Lord Buckmaster, speaking in 1921 on this point, said:
In this country high judicial office should be placed above all temptation and those who discharge high judicial duties should be placed above all temptation and be placed in such a position that the adequacy of their position should be fully recognised. Alone among all public servants they stand in the position of having had no alleviation.
If that has no interest for hon. Gentlemen opposite, possibly they will be a little more interested in what Lord Sankey

said in 1930, when he observed that it seemed to be the policy of every Government to place more work and responsibility on the county court judges. In his view their remuneration was inadequate. I find it difficult to understand the point of view of the Opposition because the county court is surely a poor man's court, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite can talk in such a way as would lead one to suppose that the poor man should not have just as good a judge as anyone else. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) when he said he had prepared a speech on the means test, because I prepared a speech in the hope that I should be able to answer his speech on that subject.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We support the Resolution because we feel that whatever occupation a man may have, he ought to have a standard rate of fair remuneration for his job. As things are organised in this country, county court judges and others are getting substantially below it and I do not think it is going too far to say that the rate which is now proposed is not really what they are entitled to. We are just as keen to get rid of the household means test as hon. Members above the Gangway, and we shall take every opportunity to do so, but the fact that you cannot remedy one particular grievance is no reason for making other people continue to suffer under a grievance. I am in favour of getting rid of all grievances and remedying all injustices as opportunity occurs. Here is one that occurs to-day. Before long we may have an opportunity of dealing with the abolition of the means test, and I hope we shall.
I want to ask whether it is proposed making the office of county court judge attractive to distinguished members of the Bar, and whether it is proposed, as opportunity occurs, to raise them to the High Court bench. There has been only one case as far as I know in judicial history, and it would be a great stimulus to county court judges if they knew that one of the possibilities of their accepting that position was that if they proved extremely efficient they might have a chance of going to the High Court. It ought to be done now and then in suitable cases.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I would like to address my remarks to that part of the Resolution which deals with county court


judges, although may I say in passing that I am at a loss to understand what a judge's clerk does that entitles him to a salary about 30 per cent. in excess of that enjoyed by Members of this House? The Solicitor-General, in moving the Resolution, seemed to me to be proving either too much or too little. His argument was that county court judges are called upon to deal with a larger volume of work than is dealt with in the High Court, that their work is of the highest intricacy, and that, although he did not say this but implied it, the importance to the litigants before county court judges of the matters which are litigated there, is every bit as great as the matters litigated in the so-called High Court by High Court judges. Therefore, I understood that his general argument was that, as the county court judge was doing as much and as important work as the High Court judge, his salary ought to be about two-fifths of the salary of the High Court judge. I find it impossible to understand that argument. Either the Solicitor-General ought on that argument to propose for the county court judge a salary of £5,000, or he ought to have proposed as part of the Resolution to raise the county court judge's salaries up to £2,000 and at the same time reduce the High Court judges' to £2,000.
Unless he does one or the other, the proposal which he puts before the Committee will not achieve the end that he has in view. I understand the end to be that the Government wish to attract to the county court benches men of maturity and of the same calibre as the High Court bench, because it is doing work of as great importance. If you want to attract to one job men of equal calibre to those who are fulfilling another job, it is hopeless to expect it if you offer only two-fifths of the salary. Surely, it will not be suggested that by raising the county court judge's salary by a mere £350 a year you are going to make him adequate for High Court work, which, as I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, they are in fact doing. The Government are attacking this proposal at the wrong end. While this system of society remains you will not persuade men of ability to do jobs unless they can get the same amount of money as they would get in other jobs requiring the same ability. That is the principle which

the Committee are asked to accept. If, therefore, you want to solve the difficulty of getting men of the right type for this work, you must at the same time avoid the difficulty, in which we on this side of the Committee find ourselves, of not wishing to pay out of the public purse to people who are in no need greater sums at a time when vast numbers of people in far greater need are denied what every Member of the Committee will agree is their just claim. The way to avoid that is to begin at the other end.
It is true that county court and High Court judges will require something more than the average level of earnings at the Bar, but if those earnings are too high, I would suggest that the Government introduce legislation limiting the earnings of banisters and solicitors. I can speak freely on this subject because I practise as a solicitor, and I readily admit, provided that every other member of the profession would admit it too, that I earn far more than I deserve when I compare the value of my services to the community with the value of the miner's services, or with the value of the services that would be rendered by a skilled unemployed craftsman who is unable because of our organisation of society to find any employment by which he can contribute anything at all. If the Solicitor-General would tackle the problem in that way, he would render a great public service. He would bring down the cost of litigation enormously, and, if he is anxious about the ability of poor people to obtain justice in the courts, it would bring down the cost of obtaining that justice. It would do far more good than the raising of county court judges' salaries. He would bring a whole level of law costs and he would then be able to get able men to fill judicial positions without so great a financial sacrifice as is sometimes now entailed.
It would have the effect of splitting up the amount of work among banisters more equitably. It would bring to an end the practice of going to fashionable silks with huge incomes, not because of their ability. It would set a fashion of valuing services rendered to the community by different professions in such a way as to lead to some kind of equalisation of income. It would enable the Solicitor-General to select men of ability


out of the ranks of legal labourers at a cost which the State could afford, and it would not allow such great bitterness as the proposal which he is making to-day has aroused in so many people's minds. He is approaching a difficult question from the wrong end and saying that because one class of privileged people earn to-day, as they have always earned, sums far in excess of the value of the services which they render to the community we must pay servants of the State salaries which cannot be justified on their own merits and are only justified by the difficulty of obtaining the right kind of people otherwise. Let me commend that proposal to the hon. and learned Member and ask whether he will not withdraw this Resolution for the time being, until the Government are in a position to come to the House with a considered scheme embracing not merely this one point of inequity in our legal system but a general scheme which would remove a great many of the abnormalities and, in its stride, deal with the immediate difficulties which this Resolution is designed to meet.

6.31 p.m.

Sir W. Davison: I think the country will he amazed to note the lack of responsibility which has been evident on the Socialist benches in dealing with this most important matter. We had the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) actually referring to some remarks of the Prime Minister in which he stated that all payments should be on the basis of need, and asking whether any need had been shown in these cases. Could there be anything more misleading, more mentally warped than that quotation from the Prime Minister when referring to people whose unemployment benefit had expired and who were asking for maintenance from the State because they were, unfortunately, unable to maintain themselves? There could not be a more fallacious argument to bring forward against increasing the salaries of these judges and magistrates. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) said that this Resolution was another instance of the infamy—he used that word—of the Government in putting money into the pockets of people who do not need it. Practically every speech from the Socialist benches has dealt with this quesiton on the basis of need, and yet

another Socialist Member asked whether a man with £1,500 or £1,650 a year could be said to be in need of any increase in remuneration to maintain himself and his family. Of course those arguments are absolutely futile and beside the point. The Committee is asked to consider what is a proper salary, such as will enable the best men to be obtained. It is only the best men that the country wants for these important jobs.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Forty pounds a week.

Sir W. Davison: Listen to that. Could there be any better example of what I have said? The country will be amazed at the frivolity with which the Socialists are talking about £43 a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said £40 a week!"]—a week then—I thought he said £40 a year; his interruption is equally frivolous. These gentlemen, who have to decide most complicated cases of law and fact, must have accurately trained minds. If there is one field of public service which is of greater importance to the poorer classes of the community than any other it is that in which the county court judges operate, and I was pleased to note the practically unanimous agreement on the Socialist benches over the admirable way in which county court judges deal with workmen's compensation cases, how their decisions are preferred and with what fairness they deal with them. Therefore, in the interests of the poorer people especially, it is well to get the best men possible as county court judges.
Of course one could put an advertisement in the papers offering the appointment at £1,000 a year, and even if only banisters of seven years' standing could apply there would be hundreds of applicants, but they would not be from men such as the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary want for these important posts. They want the very best men, men who are earning £4,000 or £5,000 at the Bar. [Interruption.] Somebody says "Rubbish!" It is not rubbish and the hon. Member ought to know it. We want the man who is getting anything from £3,000 to £5,000 a year at the Bar and who has experience of all the branches of the law, and, further, is a man whom the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary can trust to deal with this work in a sympathetic and judicial way, and the field open to them in


making such appointments is not nearly so large as hon. Members opposite think. One could not expect a man with a family to support, in these days of heavy expenses and heavy taxation, to give up £3,000 a year in order to take an appointment of £1,500 a year. This Resolution ought to be discussed on its merits and not with silly ideas about the means test, an entirely different matter.
There is the further point that these county court judges earn very large fees for the Treasury from the people who appear in their courts. I think it was the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir John Withers) who gave us some remarkable figures on that aspect of the question. I think the Westminster County Court takes £30,000 a year in fees and Manchester £10,000 or £I2,000—I cannot remember the exact figures, but they are far and away higher than the salaries of the judges, and why should the litigants who pay these fees not have the very best men to decide their cases? Of course they ought to get the very best men, and to talk in this connection about people who get small wages and who want extra pay in order to bring up their children is futile. We want the best men for these appointments, and it is more to the interest of the poorer people than of any other class in the community that we should get them. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) support the Resolution on behalf of the Liberal party. He made a valuable suggestion, which I hope the Government will take into consideration, that more promotions to the High Court might well be made from the county courts. Some of the judges who have for many years done valuable work in the county courts are well able to discharge the duties of the High Court. The real reason why I rose was to try to bring this Debate back to a sense of reality after the very frivolous lines on which the Opposition had conducted it, and I end by saying that the county court judges are especially the people's judges and that we ought to have the very best judges we can for the people's work.

6.38 p.m.

Major Milner: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has worked himself into a state of indignation for which I can see no reason whatever, and from what he has said to the House

it is obvious that he has very little knowledge indeed of the system of appointing judges to the county courts or of what has happened in the past and recently. It is not true that the Lord Chancellor has appointed persons who by private practice have earned £4,000 or £5,000 a year, or anything like it. There have been odd cases—I know of two or three in the county of Yorkshire—of men at the Bar who, it may be, have earned that income, or rather more, who have been appointed county court judges, but generally speaking that has not been so.

Sir W. Davison: My point was that the Lord Chancellor has not had the scope—that we want men who have been earning £4,000 or £5,000, but that he had to take men who had been earning very much less and were not the best men for the job.

Major Milner: I am sure that an increase of £500 or £350 a year will not make all the difference between getting bad men and the best men for these appointments, and it is absurd for the hon. Member to put such an argument before the Committee. Having said that, I am bound to admit that I find myself in some little difficulty in this Debate. Having sat on a number of committees which had to do with county court judges, and having myself proposed Amendments, which were carried, which have imposed greater duties on them, and having urged on many occasions that their status should be improved, I find myself in some difficulty in opposing in any sense the proposal which the Government have brought before the Committee. I agree entirely with many of the arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward. The difficulty in all these cases is that when dealing with one particular class you have, of necessity, to draw a comparison between that class and other classes among whom there is greater need, such as those of whom my hon. Friends have spoken. At the same time there is surely force in the argument that unless those on this side of the Committee say they will agree to no proposal from the Government Benches until certain admitted hardships of those on the means test have been dealt with, there is no more justification for opposing this particular proposal—or picking it out—than for opposing others.
I regard it as essential that those administering justice should be adequately remunerated for their work, and that such a salary should be paid as will enable the choice to be made from really competent men, irrespective of other conditions. In one thing I agree with the hon. Member for South Kensington. The county courts deal with something like 90 per cent. of the civil litigation in this country, and I regard it as essential, and not least in the interest of the working classes, that those who are judges in the county courts should be fully qualified in every respect. I doubt whether the salary that is even now proposed will get quite the type of men that I should like to see on the county court bench. There ought to be no distinction between the High Court and the county court in this matter. The degree of competency required in a county court judge is in every respect at least as great as that required in a High Court judge.
There are a number of considerations which have to be borne in mind, and there are points on which I think it right that questions should be asked of the Government. As a practising member of the lower branch of the profession, though why it should be termed the lower branch I have never been able to understand, I am not at all satisfied about the appointments to the county court bench. There have been some splendid appointments; many of those which I know of, particularly in my own neighbourhood, have been, splendid appointments—young men, competent and in the prime of life, who had built up excellent practices. But that has not always been the case, I regret to say. One cannot particularise, but there have been what I regard as bad appointments, the selection even of those who have probably never practised in the county courts in their lives. In my comparatively short experience I have known judges who, in my submission, have been incompetent, have been biased and have been rude. Notice should be taken of these matters by those who have the power of making these appointments.
I think I am right in saying that many of the appointments have been, and still are, rather of a political nature or are the result of real or imaginary political services. I do not suggest for a moment that all the appointments have been made on purely political grounds, nor do I think that because a man is of a certain political persuasion, or even takes an

active part in politics, he should be debarred from appointment either as county court judge or High Court judge. Politics should not be of the slightest importance in comparison with knowledge of the law and competence to carry out the duties of the office. One result of the effect of politics upon these appointments is—I can say so quite freely, not being a member of the Bar, to which all these appointments go—that very few of them go to members of this party. I can recollect only one. It is scandalous that competent men should be deprived of the opportunity of sitting on the bench because they do not happen to belong to the party in power.
Another result of the present system which, I think, applies to county court judges, police and stipendiary magistrates, is that men of no party who have been devoted solely to their profession, have rarely been appointed. I know, and so I dare say do hon. Members in all parts of the House, men who are at the Bar to-day, competent in the highest degree, but who have not been able, maybe from choice or compulsion, to make those social and political contacts which seem necessary under the present system. The result is that the country, and litigants, lose the services of these men. The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, who have the appointments, are in an unsatisfactory and invidious position. They cannot possibly know all those who are qualified for these offices, and they have—and in practice I know that they do so—to make inquiries and make up their minds as well as they can from information which they obtain from a hundred and one sources. I do not think there is any doubt that a member of the Bar who has a friend in a position of authority who can give him a push, has a much greater chance of appointment than one who has been devoted solely to his profession and has had no opportunity of making the contacts which seem necessary.
There is one other very peculiar anomaly. None of these appointments is open to members of the lower branch of the profession. They cannot become county court judges, police magistrates, or recorders. I notice, curiously enough, that a solicitor is rarely appointed as solicitor to a Government Department. Why that should be I have not the remotest idea. If hon. Members will look


at those who are either Treasury solicitors or solicitors to the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Health, they will find that they are always from the Bar and are never solicitors. The examinations that solicitors have to pass are far more arduous and their experience is at least as great, and is certainly more varied, than in the other branch of the profession but they are never appointed to these offices. However that may be, we ought to have some assurance that this matter of appointments will have the attention of the Government. I should like to see appointments being made, not by one man, however much one may like to rely upon his judgment, but, as in the case of the Civil Service generally, by some sort of board of selection which would have public confidence and the confidence of the profession, and which would make the best choice possible on the merits of those who are best fitted to fill these positions.
I am bound to say, on the Resolution which is before the Committee, that I do not regard the salary proposed to be paid to county court judges as in the least excessive, in view of the duties which have been heaped upon them in recent years. We require better standards than are possessed by some of those who occupy the positions. I am not prepared to vote against this proposal. There are differences in the work done by county court judges. Some of them are extremely hard worked, as in London, Liverpool, Leeds, and in industrial areas. On the other hand, many county court judges work only half their time, and some of them have told me so. They would be very happy to have more work thrust upon them. The Lord Chancellor, or whoever is responsible, might now give consideration to the revision of county court areas in the country, in order better to distribute the work that has to be done.
I heartily support the proposal, which I have made on many occasions from these benches, that county court judges should be considered for appointment to the High Court. Under the common practice at present, a county court judge can aspire to nothing higher than his present position. There is no question that the result has been, in some instances, that judges have taken it easy. They are not particularly concerned to push ahead and polish off the work, and to give satisfaction to litigants. They are

inclined to show impatience. An advocate, like the labourer, is worthy of his hire, particularly if he is a young man who ought to have a full opportunity of putting his client's case, which he is paid to do. We ought to press the Government for an assurance, but I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman can give any assurance now. We ought to press the Government to see that the evident wishes of this Committee in this respect are conveyed to the proper quarter.
When I come to the matter of police magistrates in London, I am not at all happy about the Financial Resolution. I understand that those who sit on Metropolitan police court benches do so nowadays for something like an average of three days a week. If that be so they are certainly not hard worked. I cannot agree with what some speakers have said, that these magistrates have the responsibility, the knowledge or the competence—general competence I ought to say, because they have a particular com petence, no doubt—which county court judges are obliged to have. I am not prepared to stand for the principle that the merits of police magistrates are in the least equivalent to those of county court judges. In any case how is it that stipendiary magistrates in the country are not brought within the terms of this Resolution? There may be some technical reason. It may be that Metropolitan magistrates come under the Home Secretary and that the stipendiary magistrates do not, but I should value some explanation why stipendiary magistrates in the country, who frequently work every day in the week, and have at least equal responsibility with those in London, should not have at least equal remuneration.
It is obvious from what I have said that the whole of this matter is honeycombed with anomalies. I have made a proposal that there should be an appointments board or a board of selection. The Government should also take into consideration the question of appointing a commission, or other appropriate body, to consider the whole question of appointments with a view to putting them on a better basis and doing away altogether with even a suspicion that the majority of them are tinged in any way with either personal or political patronage. If assurances are given on this


point, I could not bring myself to vote against the Financial Resolution.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) for a very interesting and very shrewd speech, with a very great deal of which I agree most heartily. A good many of the points which he made I have remained here for some time desiring to make for myself. I do not know, but I rather suspect, that the salaries of stipendiary magistrates in the country are paid by the local authorities or by local funds, and that the salaries are fixed locally. With regard to police magistrates, little has been said about their salaries in the course of this Debate. Police magistrates in London fulfil a very onerous function, and deal with matters of personal liberty. They also deal with the preliminary investigation of all indictable offences committed within the London police district. In addition to that, they carry an enormous burden of very small cases of a semi-criminal or semi-civil character. If any hon. Members have had much experience of treating a very large number of very small cases in a very little time, presented by people who have no professional assistance, they will realise what a tiring and onerous job it is.
A tremendous number of people, of all classes, come into collision with the police in the course of the year, either because they are supposed to have obstructed non-existing traffic by leaving a motor car in a cul-de-sac, or they have let their chimneys get on fire; or it may be because of an offence in one of the more serious branches. It is essential that people who are appointed to the jobs should, by and large, merit and receive the confidence of the people who come before them. It is not easy in the case of a man, who is perhaps not accustomed to presenting a case, and is often there alone—a costermonger, a workman, or even people of much higher position on the outside of things—to search for the truth, as against the policeman or the trained advocate who very often presents cases.
From this point of view I am not criticising the proposal made here that the remuneration of police magistrates in London should be increased. The task of finding suitable people, who must not be so much learned lawyers as people

who know humanity and understand the springs of human actions—men of the world as they are sometimes called, although I do not like the expression—has given great anxiety in recent years. A case has been made for increasing the remuneration of police court magistrates in London. Once appointed in London they cannot be shifted. If you happen to get a man who is not suitable for London, you cannot send him to Somers-et or Northumberland. Hon. Members opposite will realise that it is a difficult task to get hold of people who are ready to fulfil this difficult and sometimes awkward and anxious jurisdiction.
Regarding the county court judges, I agree with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds. Their task is extremely difficult. For six or seven years before the War I spent practically every day of my professional life in county courts, often not doing the job myself but waiting for the time to do it, so that I had the opportunity of watching the job being done. I wonder how many hon. Members have spent the days that I spent years ago in Whitechapel County Court watching the cases being presented by people of poor education, often with little or no English, who were trying to explain to the judge what their case was or what their defence was. It is far from being an easy job. The county court judge has to know the facts, has to elicit the facts, often has to examine the witnesses himself, and then he has to apply the right law, with the knowledge that if the case involves more than £20 someone will probably criticise him in a higher court and seek to upset him. The sums of money with which the county court judges deal are small, but they bulk large in the minds of the people who seek recourse to these courts. The difficulty of finding people who combine the right qualities has given great anxiety to those who are responsible for their appointment. It is not a new problem.
In the public service and in the public interest this proposal is long overdue. The criticism I should make of it is that it is half-hearted and does not go anything like far enough. I should add one other criticism. Some county court judges sit in large centres of population where they are extremely hard worked, and often overworked. Those of us who have practised in these courts know that in some districts the county court judge,


especially if he happens to be a good man, is overworked. People resort to his court, and in some of the larger areas of population outside London even the people who could go to the higher courts not infrequently abandon a small part of their claim to bring it within the county court jurisdiction, or agree with each other that it shall be dealt with at that court; County Court judges cover all cases while High Court judges are, to some extent, working as specialists in that branch of the law with which they have been chiefly associated in their practice at the Bar.
So far from saying this is a case where we should criticise this advance of £2,000, I say that we should be making the county courts truly effective and eliminating the weak judges, that we ought to advance their salaries not by the few pounds we are doing, but in a manner which will make their jobs really worth while. We shall not meet the difficulty of overworked judges by altering the districts. The whole object of the county court is to bring justice nearer to the homes of the people, and if you increase the districts you only give the county court judge more travelling. There is no allowance for travelling as far as I know, and the judge has to meet the expenses incurred out of his salary. To increase the districts would merely increase the difficulties. In 1856 the salaries of county court judges were fixed on a flat-rate basis for the first time. It was then £1,200, and it was increased a few years later by £300.
It seems to me that the time has come when certain county court judges should be marked out, because of the amount of work they have to do, for a larger salary than the flat rate. In this Resolution that principle is recognised, because the Chief Magistrate in London, whose work is- greater than that of his brethren by reason of certain particular functions he has to discharge, is to get £300 a year more than any other of the police court magistrates in London. With regard to many of the county court judges, the difference between the work they do and the work that some of their colleagues in the lighter areas have to do, is worth a good deal more than that discrimination of £300. I hope it is not the last we are going to hear about this.

The justice shop which is conducted by this country in the county courts appears from available statistics to be run at a profit. The amount of fees collected is very large. I will not repeat the observations made earlier by the senior Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), but we all know that in the average county court the fees received more than pay expenses and leave a profit to the Treasury. It was not unknown years ago for the county court judge to receive less in salary than that which was received by the registrar in his own court.
That anomaly has been swept away, but in commending this Resolution to the Committee I do so in the hope that we shall have an opportunity at some time in the not too distant future of considering this matter further, and of having regard to the question of a flat-rate salary. By and large, the judges in the High Court are supposed to have more or less the same amount of work to do, and to sit about the same number of days. In the county courts it frequently happens that the busy man has to sit 11 months in the year and on almost every available day in the month, whereas in the quieter districts the county court judge does not sit on half the days in the week, and sometimes does not sit after the middle of the day because there is not the work for him to do. Why should he be paid at the flat rate of £2,000, while his brother some distance away is doing twice the amount of work? On some of the other matters with which this Resolution deals I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to speak, and while I heartily support the Resolution I regret that with regard to county court judges it will not do a great deal of good.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) asked that we should not pick on particular proposals. I want to assure him that it is not this particular Resolution that has been picked on, but the many proposals which have been brought forward by the Government to help people of this type while at the same time they have every objection to, and put up a fight against, anything being done for people who are lower-paid. It is for that reason that we say that the people who are lower-paid and have worse conditions


should be dealt with before the people mentioned in this Resolution. It deals not only with county court judges and Metropolitan police magistrates, but with a great many of the clerical staffs. I wish that something more had been said to give us an indication of what the increase is that it is intended to give these people. The hon. Member who last s poke has not followed closely what happens to police magistrates in London. He said that they remain police magistrates, but if he will glance at what has happened in the past he will find that some of them have been promoted. I can point to one who has been appointed to another position.

Mr. Ede: If they are good enough teetotallers they send them to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Kelly: I was not thinking of that particular magistrate, but of others.
I would ask the Solicitor-General, when he replies, what difference this will make as compared with the salary of the chairman of quarter sessions here in London. It looks to me as though the man who is appointed to the superior position of chairman of quarter sessions, and certainly his vice-chairman, will be on a lower scale of pay than the police magistrates against whose decisions he may have to decide appeals. Again, there are the chairmen of quarter sessions in Northern Ireland. Why are they mentioned in this Motion, when chairmen of quarter sessions in other parts of the country are not mentioned at all? The Government seem ready at all times to assist people who are in positions such as those mentioned in this Resolution. Whether in the matter of pensions or in the matter of increased salaries, they seem ever ready to help, but when it is suggested to them that those in their service, either as artisans or as labourers, should have a more adequate income, the Government seem to find every reason—sometimes no reason at all—why these people should not receive it.
The hon. Member for South Kensington {Sir W. Davison), who delivered an impassioned speech and who took strong exception to these men being considered from the point of view of need, is certainly ever ready to help people into £2,000 a year, while he would resent anyone at £2 a week being raised to a

standard such as £3 would represent. There was no necessity for him to take the line that he did in answer to the hon. Member for Spennymoor {Mr. Batey), who throughout these discussions, not only on the present Motion but on others, has made it quite clear that his position is that, until those people who really need a wage that would enable them to live are able to have such a wage, we have no right to be considering in the way that we are this evening those who have a wage that is adequate for a reasonable standard of life. I hope that, despite what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner), we are going to divide against this Motion, and I should like to think that we could defeat the Motion and prevent it from going forward.

7.18 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) seemed to me to be rather inconsistent with the policy of his own party in the past. While the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) was speaking, there were cries from the Opposition about the monstrousness of paying any man £40 a week, and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and others spoke of the necessity of looking after the poorest in the land before we take such measures as this Resolution proposes. Some of us in the House have, however, memories of the time when the Labour Government was in office. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is not here at the moment, but perhaps he saw the trend of the Debate, and considered it rather wiser to stay away. When it comes to the principle contained in this Resolution, as to whether people should or should not be paid high salaries for particular services, the hon. Member for Seaham, as a Minister of the Crown, was a very strong advocate in the House for paying, to a gentleman of very high reputation and great knowledge, a salary of no less than £7,000 a year. When the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission was formed, the hon. Member for Seaham said this:
The remuneration of the chairman is £7,000 per annum, and three commissioners are remunerated at the rate of seven guineas a day with a minimum of 100 days per annum.


Some hon. Gentlemen took up the principle which is contained in this Resolution, and opposed it with consistency, including the hon. Member for Spennymoor, but the speaker on behalf of the Labour Government—and, after all, if a party is supposed to have any political hope or future, it must rally behind its accredited leaders—the hon. Member for Seaham said:
I cannot imagine that anyone would cavil at a market price being paid for his services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1931; cols. 2398–2404, Vol. 248.]
It seems to me to be very inconsistent that the Opposition should come down here and divide; but perhaps the Front Bench of the Opposition, who were responsible leaders in the Labour Government, are not going to divide; perhaps the back benchers are going to divide and leave their own Front Bench in the cart. Whether that is so or not we shall see in the very interesting Division that is shortly going to take place.

Mr. Westwood: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that the leaders on the Front Bench at the moment have already indicated that they are going to divide, and that the Labour party are a united party.

Captain Balfour: This gets most interesting, because we have now reached the position that the Opposition is going to vote as a united party on this principle. The trouble is, however, that when one looks at the list of those who took part in the Division on this great principle, one finds that those who supported the payment of £7,000 a year included the present Leader of the Opposition. I have here the Division list. The question was put:
That a sum, not exceeding £13,100, be granted for the said Service.
which included £7,000 a year, or £140 a week, for the chairman and seven guineas a day for a minimum of 100 days for the members. It is true that the hon. Member for Spennymoor was consistent, but the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), whom I see here to-day, spoke against it and voted for it. I see also the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who no doubt will be in the Lobby with us to-night consistently supporting the principle of paying someone a high salary for services rendered,

because he supported it at that time. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not in the list, but his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), was a strong supporter, in that he gave his vote on that occasion for £7,000 a year, or £140 a week. Led by the hon. Member for Seaham and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who were so strong in 1931, when they were enjoying the fruits of office, in supporting the proposal that someone should be paid £7,000 a year and that no one should cavil at someone being paid a high salary for high services, the Labour party are now going to trail behind in the Lobby, showing once more to the House and to the country that their practice differs greatly in different circumstances, and that their policy is not according to principle, but according to opportunity.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: There are some words with which I used to be familiar when I was a minister, and to which I would like to refer the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour):
While the light goes on to burn,
The greatest sinner may return.
The Labour party are to be congratulated on taking a sound and working-class viewpoint with regard to this Resolution in deciding to vote against it. I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet what leads him to suppose that the Labour party, on the occasion to which he referred, were led by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the present Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion they were led by the present Lord President of the Council; they were very largely influenced by him and by his philosophy; but in these days the Labour party are beginning to realise where that policy leads—the policy of the betrayal of the working-class. My hon. Friend who is sitting on this bench says I cannot get away with that, but I can get away with it very easily, because I was just as opposed to the Vote on that occasion as I am to the present Vote. I have no need of any repentance on this matter. The hon. and gallant Member will agree that I and my immediate colleagues were whole-hearted in trying to get the Labour party to realise how wrong was the point of view of the


present Lord President of the Council and of Lord Snowden, who was his chief assistant in keeping the working-class movement on the wrong lines.
I am glad that there is this change. The Labour party have no reason to be ashamed of the line they are taking in this connection. I think that the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) put very well the issue that is involved in this Resolution when he said that it was a question whether we should support an increase to £40 a week for one man, while we refuse to give decent treatment to the man who is getting only £40 a year or less. The issue really boils down to whether the House of Commons should be more concerned about justice for the £40 a week man or for the £40 a year man. The Labour party have decided in favour of the £40 a year man, and, in taking such a decision, they are acting as a real Labour party.
The suggestion which I rose to make to the Committee, and which I think the Solicitor-General might consider, is whether he should not withdraw the Resolution altogether. I think that, after the course the Debate has taken, and the fact that Members on both sides of the Committee have shown that there are so many anomalies in the whole position that it is practically defenceless, the Resolution should be withdrawn and the Government should set themselves to try to produce a scheme that will be intelligent and intelligible and just to all the interests concerned.
When I see hon. Members so worried about getting the best men for these appointments as county court judges—and one knows what competition there is for these jobs at the present figure—I wonder what they are trying to put across the House of Commons. Apart from some half-dozen to 20 members of the Bar, they could get practically any member of the Bar ready and anxious to take one of these jobs. They are ready to use any amount of intrigue. It is not a secret that many of the appointments are practically political appointments, perhaps even worse. High Court judges and county court judges belong very largely to one political party and one social set. I am told that it is almost impossible for anyone to become a High Court judge unless he has an Oxford accent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh,

but I have in mind particularly a very eminent King's counsel, who again and again has been passed over with regard to appointment to the High Court because he did not happen to be fortunate enough to waste years at Oxford. He was working all the time.

Major Procter: Are there no Scottish judges with Scottish accents?

Mr. Stephen: I fail to see the relevance of that interruption. There may be a few good Scottish judges, but I do not know them. I am making no defence for them, because, like the English judges, they are drawn from one particular section of the community—the privileged section. However, that is apart from this Resolution and I do not intend to pursue it. I want to draw attention to the fact that a solicitor cannot be appointed as a county court judge. While there are many members of the higher branch of the legal profession, to which I belong, who have had a very good experience, I believe that you could get members of the lower branch of the profession who have greater experience and would be every bit as well qualified to fill the position of county court judge as a member of the Bar, but they are excluded. Therefore, I come back to the suggestion that this question could be dealt with in a thorough-going way. There should be a complete reconstruction of the whole position in regard to the judiciary and the practice of law. The division between the two branches of the legal profession should be swept away, because it is quite undemocratic.

Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. Does this really matter to us on this Debate?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member had just ended what he was saying about that.

Mr. Stephen: I am sorry if my hon. and learned Friend, an eminent King's Counsel is a little bit afraid that members of the lower branches of the profession might be appointed as county court judges. I do not want to say anything nasty to him in regard to his interruption but I hope he was not getting anxious about a future appointment. In regard to this whole matter I say that it is absolutely shameful that there should be this tremendous enthusiasm on the part of hon. Members who are responsible for


the bad treatment of the £40 a year man and that they should come here with this plaintive appeal for the £40 a week man. I should like a little information from the Lord Advocate. I am sorry that he is not here. He keeps bobbing out and in. There is a part of the Resolution which deals with Scottish appointments and I should like him to give us some information in regard to the Land Court in Scotland. How much is paid to the chairman and what number of cases have they heard last year and in the preceding year? I am interested in view of the fact that we have been told of the great increase in the work of county court judges. I should like to know whether there has been a corresponding increase in the amount of work in the Scottish Land Court.
There is also a question about Lyon King of Arms. How much is this gentleman getting? This point shows that this Resolution is out of date. A suitable Resolution would be one making provision for doing away with Lyon King of Arms and everything associated with that office. After the Division has taken place I hope that the country will realise, in the words of the hon. Member for West Kensington, that the question before us is a question of decent treatment for the £40 a year man supported by the Opposition, against the overwhelming desire on the part of His Majesty's Government and their supporters to add to the emoluments of the £40 a week men who have no need of any such additions to their salaries.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I do not find any Amendment that bears out the last words of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not see any opportunity of voting for the £40 a year man. Therefore, I think his remarks are wholly irrelevant. I entirely differ from hon. Members opposite who maintain that the working men would object to this proposal. I do not think that there is any member of the legal profession in this House who has had more to do professionally with working men than myself. For many years if there was a not in Scotland I defended the working men, and I am glad to say I defended them successfully. Time and again I got them off. I could enumerate a number of cases.

Mr. Logan: Was it your usual practice?

Mr. Macquisten: It was quite a sufficient practice. There were as many nots as there were in the Scotland division of Liverpool. I have never been more generously paid for my work than by working men. They paid me on a most liberal scale. I often felt that they gave me too much. They are not mean. They know that brains are worth paying for. For many years I was a member of what is called the lower branch of the legal profession, and I thought then that I knew a great deal more than those of the other branch, but when I became a member of the other branch I thought differently. I have the qualification of being one of His Majesty's Counsel in England, also in Scotland, and also a Scottish Writer, that is, solicitor. Very few members of the legal profession have had the same opportunities of seeing both sides of the profession.
A great deal has been said about the county court judges. The county court judge is far more important to the mass of the community than the High Court judge. It is mostly reserved for the well-to-do to get to the High Court or the House of Lords. The mass of the people must go to the county court. There is nothing that attracts litigation more than the presence of a good judge. People flock round them like flies round a honey-pot. On the other hand if the county court judge is not an able man, people say, "What is the use of going before him?" Reference has been made to the court dues that have to be paid. It is a scandal that there should be dues. The court should be open to His Majesty's subjects, free. Court dues are a survival of the old monarchical dues, when the King was the judge as well as the fountain of justice, and some courtier had to be bribed in order that there might be approach to him.
It is monstrous and a denial of justice to many poor people that they have to pay costly dues into court before they can go before the court. That is the sort of thing to which the Labour party ought to direct their attention; to get the court dues abolished, so that poor men can go to the courts. That is much more important than a petty expenditure of this kind which deals really with small sums. The amounts involved here are really small. Is there any solicitor or barrister of any


standing who would dream of accepting some of these posts at the salary? It may be said that there are very many who would gladly accept them. It is true that, in proportion, the numbers of unemployed members of the legal community are as numerous as or more numerous than the unemployed in any other occupation. But in these matters a wise choice is everything. Judges are born, not made. I can speak from experience of three of the finest judges that ever sat on a bench. One of them, in particular, had a very little practice before he went to the bench. To their finger-tips they were nature's gentlemen, but not in the social sense. They had the instinct to be gentlemen. They could not think of doing the wrong thing. They had the instinct to do what was right. They made splendid judges. The task of selection is very difficult.
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said that solicitors are not appointed as judges. They are appointed in Scotland. When I was a solicitor we did not like the appointment of solicitors to these posts. They did well enough in a way, but there was something wanting that could be got only from members of the Bar.

Major Milner: The hon. and learned Member is speaking of Scottish solicitors.

Mr. Macquisten: Yes. I do not know the English solicitors well enough. I had however, the control and management of the longest case ever heard in the English courts. It lasted 178 days. We paid our counsel over £30,000, and he was worth it, because of the enormous sum that was involved. It is extraordinary what people will pay for a really good man. I can remember a certain eminent counsel, recently appointed a High Court judge, who was paid a big fee by a Member of this House, himself an eminent lawyer in the East. This eminent counsel differed with an expert who was the authority in this branch of law, but the expert finally agreed with him. The Member of this House said to me: "His fee was a large one, but it saved us £150,000." The payment of large fees to eminent counsel is exactly on the same footing as the payment of a movie star, or an eminent singer, or actor. There are not a great many of them and they are worth their fee.

Mr. Cassells: Does the hon. and learned Member say the same about the sheriff in his own constituency, in Oban?

Mr. Macquisten: That is not a proper question to ask. I have not appeared before him. I have been talking of those I came across in Glasgow, and those I have been talking about are long dead. I have no doubt that those who are at present in the job are doing it splendidly. It must not be thought that counsel have any objection to appearing before such county court judges or police magistrates. Barristers have extraordinary privileges. Solicitors are responsible for their mistakes, but we are not. A solicitor is responsible to the last penny of his estate if he makes a blunder but nobody can come after us, because we subsist on tips. We have no right to sue for our fees.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that that is not the point which we are discussing now.

Mr. Macquisten: There is another point on which I would like to comment. An hon. Member said that active young men should be appointed to these positions. I disagree. A judge's job is an old man's job, and not a young man's job. If you go before a young man full of life, mentally active, with the fighting instinct still strong in his blood, you find that it is not long before he himself is entering into the fray.

Mr. Logan: Some of the old ones do so too.

Mr. Macquisten: Some of them may be garrulous, but nevertheless I think that to get the best judges you must get men whose fighting instincts have died down. I would make a rule that no man should be appointed as a judge until he was 60. It is only then that he is divorced from worldly cares and preoccupations. It is certainly no objection to a judge that he should be old, and I have seen some wonderful judges who were very old men. With regard to the point about political appointments. I know men who have been appointed as judges and who have never stood upon the hustings in their lives but I do not think they are as satisfactory as men who have been through the mill of democracy. People who have never taken any part in politics and who rise to the bench are apt to plume themselves upon the fact,


and to say, "What wonderful fellows we are to have reached this eminence without the degrading experience of fighting elections like some of our brethren." As a rule, they are more difficult to deal with than the man who has himself been dealt with by the multitude at election meetings. Nothing takes the conceit out of a man like going through an election. It is the gallery and the pit which ultimately judge the fate of a play and the stalls and the circle have comparatively little to say in it; and the man who has been through political controversies and has had to face the crowd is improved in moral by the experience. When he is on the bench he has no difficulty in sloughing off his old political ideas, because in the case of a great many of them the politics are only skin-deep, and do not get into their souls for a lawyer always sees both sides. But in political experience they develop that instinct of humanity which is essential in a good judge. Some of the men who have been best on the bench have been the keenest politicians, and in their political experiences they have acquired a consciousness and a knowledge of the people, and of the human spirit which stand them in good stead when they are judging between one man and another.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that 60 was just about the right age for a judge, and on looking into a reference book I see that the hon. and learned Member himself has just turned 60. I trust he will soon be a judge.

Mr. Macquisten: I wish I had just turned 60. I am more than a lustrum ahead of it, and I never could have afforded to be a judge.

Mr. Logan: My point of view on this matter may not be that of the majority of my hon. Friends here. I believe that the man who gives good service should be paid for it. I believe that it is important to remove every possibility of suspicion from those in high places who have the responsibility of giving decisions and judgments involving large sums of money and other important considerations. I do not know any place from which it is more essential to remove even the possibility of a breath of suspicion than the

courts of justice. It is not that I do not feel the injustices suffered by the poor of the country to which reference has been made by hon. Members, but to me it seems irrelevant on this question to introduce such questions as the means test. I would fight against the means test with any hon. Member, but I cannot see its relevance or the relevance of any other of the social evils and inequalities of the clay, to the discussion in which we are engaged.
I did not vote on a previous occasion on a question of this kind because then it was a new appointment and an advance from £3,000 to £7,000, but to-night we are told by the Solicitor-General that this is a question of making adjustments. We are told that there have been certain errors in administration, that things have been done which the actuaries have declared are not legal, and I take it that if we were to carry on as we have been doing in the past the position would be irregular, and that what we are doing to-night is to regularise anomalies which have arisen. I do not think that that is a right state of things, and in other affairs a responsible department in such a position would be surcharged. We are told, however, that the difficulty can only be regularised by the vote of this Committee, and in the circumstances it is only fair and reasonable that that regularisation should take place. I am asked to vote here on a question affecting men of knowledge and integrity who hold responsible positions and are called upon to adjudicate, not occasionally but during the whole of their lives, while they are compos mentis. They are supposed to be ornaments to the Bar and credits to the administration of English justice. When one goes into an English court one expects to get English justice, without any feeling as regards the person on the bench that he is not getting sufficient for discharging the duties of his responsible position. It is no use, in the year 1937, to say that a man, whether a poor man or a rich man, is not influenced by the fact that he has to carry on his home and meet other responsibilities, and it is most important that our English judiciary should be kept apart from any exigencies which might affect those holding such responsible positions.
Any man of average ability practising in the courts is able to earn a substantial income. One knows, of course, that there are "duds" in the legal profession


as in every other profession, but what I am anxious to see is that on the bench we get only the best men, and that preferment does not arise from political associations. I want to see on our benches men of ability and knowledge, with power to administer the law, and the least we can do then is to ensure them security of tenure, and place them in such a position that they can carry on their duties. That is not a strange policy to hear advocated from the Labour Benches, and I do not believe it is necessary to bring in all the evils of the day when we are considering a matter of this kind. If this were the proper occasion to do so, I would deal with anomalies like the means test, but you may have anomalies in high places as well, and what I am concerned about is the removal of anomalies. Later on we are to have a discussion on anomalies in regard to other high positions, and that question will have to be faced and dealt with honestly and sincerely by the House of Commons.
I do not know what authority there is or whether there is any authority for saying how we should vote to-night on this question, but I imagine that on this particular issue no standard has been laid down, or that it has been said that the question of making proper payment for services rendered is not to be met by us to-night. If men are incompetent and unqualified for these positions, they ought to be removed, but when you get men who are competent there must be a standard rate of pay for them. I find many appointments in other departments of life filled by men of great ability with large salaries attached to them. It is not exceptional to find salaries of £3,000 and £4,000 a year—though they have never come my way, I suppose because I have not any exceptional abilities. But in other walks of life a good many people have salaries of that description, and I put it to my hon. Friends on this side, speaking on my own behalf alone, that we ought to consider that aspect of the question.
I have no interest in the matter. I have no barrister "pals" and no friends among the judges, except that I have to appear before one occasionally, though I hope I shall never have to appear before him on any charge. But if I had a case, I would rather go before an English judge or an English county court to plead

my case than before many laymen. There are many in the Labour movement who have acquired good posts and are getting good salaries—[HON. MEMBERS: Why not?"]—and on the Tory Benches, too. As regards the crumbs of office and the pickings, both parties try to get them. I have seen the tussle for them. [Interruption.] There are so many leaders that one does not know who are the leaders in the wilderness. I am prepared in regard to the vote that I shall give on this important occasion to face my people, because whether I vote for less or more will not make a penny of difference to the people whom I represent. From the point of view of an election cry it is not worth a toss of a button. Every man who has the ability required for his office ought to be paid, but we should be wise to make what arrangements we can in regard to the standard of the men who occupy the position, so that only those with ability are given the job, and there is no political preferment. I do not think that old men or too young men ought to be placed there, but I believe men of experience ought to be placed there and, when there, they ought to get good pay. I feel that any deserving man who is prepared to carry out the work fearing no foe deserves to get a post. I suppose they have to pay their way, they have to have an establishment and they have to be free from suspicion. I shall support the Resolution.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I associate myself with the attitude taken up by Members on this side. It is evident that there is a good deal of misunderstanding regarding that attitude. The speeches that have been made during the last hour have not dealt with the question on the lines of my hon. Friend who opened the Debate. The Debate is not an attack upon the persons who are involved in this Resolution. Our position is to contrast on every possible occasion the treatment meted out to people who are relatively well-placed in life compared with those for whom we speak. Your predecessor in the Chair, Captain Bourne, allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) to make a very wide attack upon the attitude taken up by our party in 1931, and I claim the right to an opportunity, which I welcome, of dealing with that aspect


of the question. We are dealing with men who will have £40 a week. They are to be given an increase of £350 a year, or approximately £6 a week. That is equivalent to twice the amount that a skilled engineer receives.
An hon. Member talked about the way that the men who fill these positions have to qualify. He told us of his experience when he went to Whitechapel and spent year after year in order to qualify himself. But miners and engineers have to do the same thing. The difference is that, when these men retire, they will be eligible for relatively good pensions, whereas miners and engineers are lucky if they get a pension of 10s. a week. We are not making an attack upon individuals. We are just criticising the treatment meted out by the Government, and by our own Government if need be, who carried out a policy of this kind in 1931. I was not in the House at that time but I have been a member of the party for many years and, big critics as there were in the House, there were bigger critics outside of the policy that this party was pursuing. It was under the mantle of the man who is now Lord President of the Council. He has been more responsible for misleading and breaking the hearts of the men and women of the country than any individual.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I hardly think that that arises on this Resolution.

Mr. Smith: I was only answering the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was very provocative. I was pointing out that some of us who were not members of the House at that time were as critical as we could possibly be of the policy of right hon. Gentlemen like the Lord President of the Council. We have seen one or two honourable men pass out of the House who were associated with him at that time. It reminded some of us that we were suspicious that he had been doing the same thing in our movement in the past 25 years. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman said may be true. We are now going to take every possible opportunity to repudiate the policy that was pursued during the time that this party was being misled in 1931. We do not want to go out of our way to attack individuals. We realise that many of these men, relatively speaking, are not

being as well paid as many town clerks or civil servants are. At the same time we shall seize upon every available opportunity to contrast the treatment meted out to poor people with that meted out to people of this description. As the Committee are going to vote this increase, we are entitled to answers to three reasonable questions. On how many days a week do county court judges work, how many weeks a year do they work and how many days a year do the Metropolitan magistrates sit?

8.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It may assist the Committee if I confine myself rigidly to answering a few questions that have been raised in this very interesting discussion. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked a question about superannuation. The position is that the bonus for which provision is made each year ranks for pension purposes. I think the hon. Gentleman, therefore, was not quite right in saying this is a substantive increase of £500 a year. It is more correct to say, as I did, that it is an increase which is effectively £350 a year, both because the bonus increases present emoluments and ranks for pension. The hon. Member made another point, which was good from one point of view but bad from another, that the bonus paid came under annual review and therefore by the provision that we were making we were removing it from annual consideration in the House. From my point of view I look on that as a very great advantage. The salaries of the judges are in that position in order that they may be removed from annual review, and the method by which a portion of their salaries comes under discussion, because it is contained in the Appropriation Bill, is not an appropriate one and not one that is common in regard to any other judicial appointment.

Mr. Ammon: What I meant was that the bonus by itself did not come up for annual review, and therefore, as I thought, did not rank for pension. Now, of course, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the position is altered altogether.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the point is now cleared up. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) wanted to know what the total cost was. I gave it in opening. It


is £35,000 a year. There are 56 county court judges and there are 27 police court magistrates in London, including the chief magistrate. I was also asked as to the salary of the Lyon King of Arms. His salary is £600, together with £138 12S., which is a non-statutory bonus. His duties are many and varied. They are of very great antiquity. He performs in Scotland, I understand, all the functions that the College of Heralds performs in this country. In this connection, as indeed in several others, we are dealing to-night with the Financial Resolution. It will, of course, be open to hon. Members to make deeper research into these matters on the Bill.

Mr. Westwood: Am I to understand that when the Bill comes in, it will be possible to remove that carbuncle from the administrative foot of Scotland?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. I cannot forecast what will be contained in the Bill. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who is not in his place at the moment, asked whether I could give him an assurance that county court judges would be raised to the High Court bench. I am afraid that in my present office, at any rate, I am not able to give him an assurance of that kind, but I can assure him that the holding of a county court office is certainly no bar to appointment to the High Court bench, and that, in considering what appointments shall be made to the High Court bench, I have not any doubt that my Noble Friend reviews all the legal talent that is available. I will not pursue the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson nad Colne (Mr. Silverman), who wondered why the Government did not, in these proposals, reduce the incomes of the Bar. That was rather a daring line of criticism in view of the fact that the hon. Member was sitting at that moment next to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). However, he managed to survive the ordeal without very noticeable embarrassment through that close association.
I need hardly add that all the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), in his very interesting and constructive speech, will be given very careful con-

sideration. As to what he said about the necessity for a revision of the county court areas, I may tell him that, as a matter of fact, revision is constantly going on. There was a very considerable revision not very long ago, and constant attention is being given to the county court areas. The situation is very difficult geographically in certain parts of the country, and there is a certain amount of wastage, which is quite unavoidable, especially in parts of the North of England, where, owing to the nature of the circuits and the time taken in travelling, it is a little difficult to dovetail the work in and ensure that full work is performed continuously throughout the year. That aspect of the question is under the constant review of those who have the construction of the circuits in hand.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked a question regarding country stipendiaries—why they were not included in the Bill. The answer is, that, of course, they are not statutory salaries. They are posts which are remunerated by the local authorities, and so do not come within the purview of the Bill. I would join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in asking him to take a kindlier view of the conditions concerning appointments, and I agree very much with what has been said that a politician ought not to be disqualified because he has been a politician from appointment to the bench, whether it is the county court bench or the High Court bench. It does rub off the corners. I thought at one moment that the criticism sprang from a kind of tacit assumption, which I do not make at all, that one ought to be ashamed of being a politician. I am proud to be a politician, and I should never look upon services in politics as making one any less capable of performing judicial duties.

Major Milner: That was not for a moment in my mind. On the contrary, we all ought to be proud of it, if we have the right spirit as our ideal.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I can assure him also that he is mistaken if he thinks that the qualifications of those who are not in the limelight of politics are overlooked. They are very carefully considered, and,


though it would be invidious to do so, I could give him chapter and verse in the case of recent appointments where people who had no claims to the wider public recognition which comes from politics have been selected for, and have filled with great distinction, offices on the bench. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked a question as to comparative salaries and wanted to know what the comparison was with the chairman of quarter sessions. The chairman of quarter sessions for London, I am told, has a salary of £2,250, and that it is outside the range and does not compete with the metropolitan police salaries.

Mr. Kelly: And the vice-chairman?

The Solicitor-General: I have not the information as to the vice-chairman. I am in the position of being a Minister for the co-ordination of three departments to-night, and it is not easy to get all the information asked for at short notice, but information of that kind will be available when the Bill comes forward.

Mr. Kelly: It is fairly evident that the minor occupant, the police magistrate, is to be more highly paid than the vice-chairman of the quarter sessions.

The Solicitor-General: I do not express any opinion on that matter. I do not know the salary of the vice-chairman. The hon. Gentleman asked for the salary of the chairman, and I have got it for him.

Mr. Kelly: And the vice-chairman?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry I have not the particulars of the salary of the vice-chairman. The hon. Gentleman also asked why the chairman of quarter sessions of Northern Ireland was included. The answer is that we are not proposing any increase of salary of the chairman of quarter sessions in Northern Ireland. His is one of those old offices of which we have to maintain the burden, while the present occupant holds office under the Act of 1920, and the proposal in the

Resolution is really to regularise the position and do away with the existing state of affairs, under which he is obtaining the additional bonus which is now statutory.

We have had a very interesting discussion, and we on this side of the Committee do not feel the smallest complaint that hon. Members opposite have seized this opportunity to raise the wider questions which are so near to their hearts. Obviously, they are as fully entitled to do that, as many of them did on the Motion when the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) was trying to obtain a salary of £7,000 for a gentleman who deserved it, and whose appointment he thought was necessary in the public interest. On this occasion, as on that, the argument is the same. If you are to get the duties of these high offices performed, you have to go into the market and pay the market rate. You have to treat the situation as it exists to-day, not as the predilections of any political faith would like to see it exist, and human nature being what it is, and the state of society being what it is, you have to pay an adequate rate. [An HON. MEMBER "In accordance with the law of supply and demand.] Yes. We are satisfied that it is not possible to fill these offices, important as they are, as we should like to see them filled without the alterations we are asking in the present statutory rates. For these reasons we defend the proposals on their merits. I do not mind what comparison you make, whether you compare them with medical officers of health, with sanitary inspectors, traffic managers, corporation officials or with high officials in co-operative societies, on any basis the present salaries are indefensible. I commend the Resolution to the Committee on its merits, in the confident hope that they will allow it to pass.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 101.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[8.27 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, Sir Irving
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Blair, Sir R.
Bull, B. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boulton, W. W.
Butler, R. A.


Assheton, R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bracken, B.
Cary, R. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Channon, H.




Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hunter, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jackson, Sir H.
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Critchley, A.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Croft, Bug.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rowlands, G.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kimball, L.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Salt, E. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lees-Jones, J.
Soott, Lord William


Culverwell, C. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dodd, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denner, P. W.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Drewe, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Duncan, J. A. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spens, W. P.


Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Emery, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Storey, S.


Errington, E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Magnay, T.
Strauss, E A. (Southwark, N.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Maitland, A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Everard, W. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fildes, Sir H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Fleming, E. L.
Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Furness, S. N.
Mill, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitchell, H. (Brenttord and Chiswick)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gluckstein, L. H.
Moreing, A. C.
Touche, G. C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morgan, R. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Granville, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Turton, R. H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, W. W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gritten, W. G. Howard




Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Orr-Ewing, J. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Owen, Major G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Peake, O.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannon, I. C.
Peat, C. U.
Wells, S. R.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H,
Perkins, W. R. O.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Pilkington, R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hepworth, J.
Porritt, R. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Holdsworth, H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.



Holmes, J. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sir George Penny and Captain Waterhouse.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cassells, T.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
Groves, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dalton, H.
Hardie, G. D.


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hayday, A.


Barr, J.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Batey, J,
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hicks, E. G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Bromfield, W.
Frankel, D.
Hollins, A.


Brooke, W.
Gardner, B. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
John, W.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)







Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Thorne, W.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, J. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walkden, A. G.


Lee, F.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walker, J.


Leonard, W.
Riley, B.
Watkins, F. C.


Leslie, J. R,
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Lunn, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Welsh, J. C.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rowson, G.
Westwood, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


MacLaren, A.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Maclean, H.
Short, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifle)


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Silverman, S. S.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Simpson, F. B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Marshall, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)



Muff, G.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Paling, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Parker, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Resolved,
That it is expedient—

(a) to provide for increasing to the amounts hereinafter specified the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the following offices, that is to say, the offices—

(i) of county court judges in England and Wales to two thousand pounds;
(ii) of the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand three hundred pounds;
(iii) of other metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand pounds;
(iv) of the recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, respectively, so long (in each case) as the office is held by the existing holder, to such amount as is equal to the total annual remuneration now paid in respect of those offices;

(b) to provide for the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the offices of the chairman and of the other members of the Scottish Land Court, and the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the offices of the Commissioners of Crown Lands (other than the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), of the Lyon King of Arms, of the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland, and of the Lyon Clerk, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Treasury, and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, so, however, that any salary of which the amount is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph shall, so long as it continues to be payable to the existing holder of the office or employment in respect of which it is payable, be at an annual rate not less than that of the total remuneration at present paid to him in respect of that office or employment;

(c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively, of such sums as may become payable in consequence of such provision as aforesaid;
(d) to provide for such consequential amendments of the enactments relating to the salaries aforesaid as may be necessary."

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

8.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India and Burma (Trade Regulation) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
We have now reached the last batch of Orders under the Government of India Act, and I expect hon. Members will hear that statement with as much relief as I feel myself. The first of these Orders is the. India and Burma (Trade Regulation) Order, 1937. Before I describe its contents, I would like to pay a tribute, in which I am sure all sides of the House would wish to join, to the late Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), much of whose life was spent in Burma and whom we shall all miss so much in this sort of discussion. He seemed to me to bring to this House a classic knowledge of Indian administration, and a genial personality which seemed to bring colour to the most and discussions.
Coming to the Orders, it may be convenient if first I discuss the first two, the Trade and Immigration Orders, which are


bound up together, and make a few preliminary remarks about them. I might then, perhaps, take in one or two blocks the remaining Orders, most of which are bound up together by some sort of similarity of subject. I must warn hon. Members, however, that their contents, apart from the first two, are highly technical, and that they may be classed as somewhat heavy material. If on a previous occasion I have alluded to the Orders I was attempting to pass through as a flotilla, I think on this occasion I might describe them as a string of barges bearing exceedingly heavy and difficult merchandise. In the case of the first two Orders, that merchandise is of great importance. I will try now to describe the contents of those two Orders.
Section 135 of the Government of Burma Act reads:
With a view to preventing undue disturbance of trade between India and Burma in the period immediately following the separation of India and Burma, and with a view to safeguarding the economic interests of Burma during that period, His Majesty may by Order in Council give such directions as he thinks fit for those purposes with respect to the duties which are, while the Order is in force, to be levied on goods imported into or exported from India or Burma.
Those terms describe shortly the contents of this Order and they explain clearly its origin and reasons. If I confine myself to one or two heads in my opening remarks, I think I shall be able to make the Order clear. Let me first remind hon. Members of its past history, then of its main features, why its main features are necessitated by the facts of the case, and finally survey its contents in so far as they affect the different trade interests represented in various parts of the House.
With regard to the past history of the Order, the first draft, which was laid in August, 1935, differs in no point of substance from the Order which I am now discussing, so that the House has had before it the outline of this Order for a very considerable period of time. At the time when my Noble Friend made that original memorandum, he issued an explanatory note which made it clear that the Governments of India and Burma had reached agreement both on the subject of the trade relations between them and on the question of immigration, the passage of labourers between them; and they made it clear that they regarded these two questions of their trade regula-

tions and immigration from one country to the other as being interdependent. It was realised for some time, beginning with the Burma Round Table Conference, that there was a great interdependence of trade between India and Burma, and that there should be no sudden break. This was realised by the Joint Select Committee, which used these words:
We feel that it would be a sorry concession to Burman sentiment if we were to recommend separation without carefully weighing the possibility of a serious diminution, whether immediate or prospective, of material prosperity.
It is that material prosperity of Burma, and indeed of India, that we are considering this evening. The Joint Select Committee supposed that it would be necessary for each Government to derive revenue, through revenue duties, from the merchandise passing between them, but it gradually became clearer and clearer that the real and vital interests of Burma should not suffer in their trading relations any immediate dislocation, because the immediate advantage of revenue duties to one or other Government would not be worth the dislocation so caused. They decided on that at any rate for an interim period—during the period in fact, of this Order—and therefore, this agreement was come to between the two Governments looking, as they were bound to do, to the interests of their own countries. I think we should respect that fact in the House. So much for the past history of the question, which hon. Members will see goes back for a considerable period.
With regard to the main features of the Order, if hon. Members will glance at the Order, they will see that the fundamental principles are continually repeated in its pages. Therefore, it will be worth while to be quite clear as to what these are. They are to preserve the existing free trade regime between India and Burma and to maintain, in the meantime, existing tariff schedules. In the case of paragraph 4, which is probably the most important operative paragraph, the object is, with regard to goods which can be produced in India and Burma, that duties on such goods shall be lowered only by agreement between the two countries; that is, Burma cannot reduce the existing duties on goods from third parties if those goods can be produced in India. Why is this free trade regime between the two countries so important? It is important


for this reason, that Burma depends for her livelihood upon the rich flow of natural products passing from her ports, in particular the port of Rangoon, to India. Let hon. Members picture these rich natural products passing from that smiling country and providing her with her very lifeblood—her rice, her oil and her teak, a volume of surplus products huge in relation to her small population—and let the House reflect that two-thirds of this rice, all this oil and 80 per cent. of this teak is marketed in India, and that India in return—and this is where immigration dovetails into the trade Order—sends annually no less than 300,000 coolies to harvest that rice crop which, in its turn, is marketed in India. Therefore, it will be seen that the interests of these two countries are indissolubly bound together and that the questions of the export from Burma of these natural products and the immigration into Burma of these coolies to harvest the main crop, are interdependent. That is the fundamental reason for continuing the free trade regime.
Hon. Members may ask what is to be the duration of this agreement. It now stands, by agreement between the Governments, at a three-year period, and the details of this are included in paragraph 7 of the Order. At the time of the Joint Select Committee, the Burma Chamber of Commerce asked for a 10-year period, because they attached so much importance to avoiding a dislocation of trade. The period was afterwards agreed upon between the two Governments to be five years, and then it was later reduced to three years. This means that the status quo continues in so far as we are regarding trade between India and Burma for this interim period.
Now I come to the next head which I said I would consider, and that is the interests of this country as represented by the different interests on all sides of this House. There is, first of all, that great export trade from Burma, which is financed largely, if not almost entirely, by British capital, which is said to amount to a sum between £40,000,000 and £60,000,000; and the House should, therefore, be careful of British interests which finance, control and organise this life-giving trade. There is also—and I am fully aware of this point of view—

the British exporter, who feels that a country like Burma should give him the advantage of a lower tariff wall for such products, for example, as cotton textiles or certain steel products. I know these points are in the minds of hon. Members, but were immediate reduction of the cotton duty to be conceded, the result would undoubtedly be that India would be alienated from Burma, with disastrous results to the trade which I have described, and both would be alienated from us. Therefore, an interim period is suggested in this agreement in which Burma will not be able materially to reduce the duties on goods produced both in the United Kingdom and India save by agreement between the two Governments. If she can persuade India, it will be possible to reduce the duty. So, in the case of United Kingdom imports into Burma, the status quo continues save where negotiations between the two jointly will secure a modification. Therefore, from the point of view of the exporter, for this interim period which we are now considering his position is no worse, and he is given an opportunity to consider what opportunities he should take in the future.
This does not mean that there is no prospect of advantage to British exporters. In the first place, this interim arrangement is for three years and not the original five; in the second place, in so far as there is no competition with Indian products, the goods that can be produced in India, Burma is free to lower the duty at two months' notice; and, in the third place, there is a very interesting insertion in the Order, in paragraph 9 of Part III, in which the maximum quota of Japanese goods, according to Sub-section (2), is not to exceed the total quantity produced in the year 1934–35. I would ask those hon. Members who are interested in the textile trade in particular to realise that in that year the Japanese imports amounted to 42,000,000 yards, an amount under half what they were two years before and two-thirds of what they were the year afterwards, and so this trade agreement does actually secure that the proportion of Japanese imports into Burma shall be at an exceptionally low figure. With the passage, as I hope, of this Order that will be secured, and I believe it will be a very definite help for the British exporter. At present negotiations are proceeding between Japan and


Burma, and I understand that agreement has been arrived at on all the important heads. I am not, unfortunately, in possession of the final agreement—I think it would help me were I in possession of it—but I can only hope that when hon. Members see it published, very shortly, they will find that they are not unduly disappointed and that the agreement is satisfactory.
I have touched on the past history of the Order, its main features, the existing conditions which cause us to recommend it to the House, and the extent to which hon. Members are affected, in particular the two great branches of British interests which are affected in this matter. Hon. Members may ask, What about the future? and I want, before I conclude, just to touch upon that aspect of the matter. I think some hon. Members are keen that opportunity should be given for the interests of their particular industry to put their case. As is well known, negotiations will take place this year as soon as possible to replace the Ottawa Agreements, and the negotiations between India and the United Kingdom and between Burma and the United Kingdom will proceed at the same time, so that, if it is possible for any agreed concessions to be arrived at, they can be covered by the terms of this Order; and that, I think, will be the value of the negotiations being conducted at the same time.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Will the same persons represent India and Burma at the Conference?

Mr. Butler: No, I do not think they will. The negotiations will be conducted at the same time, but full details have not yet been decided. I should think it likely that there will be a representative of Burma who w ill negotiate with the United Kingdom and a representative of India who will negotiate with the United Kingdom. For instance, hon. Members who represent the Lancashire interests will realise that the negotiators on behalf of the United Kingdom will, I am sure, not neglect the interests of Lancashire, so there is an opportunity this very year for the British exporter to put his point of view and to see that his point of view, upon which, I am sure, he feels very strongly, can be satisfactorily and fully considered.
It only remains for me to say one word about the immigration agreement. The

object of the agreement is that no restrictions shall be placed on emigration from India to Burma provided there is none in the contrary sense. This was a point upon which the Royal Commission on Labour and the Joint Select Committee agreed, and I hardly think there can be any dispute that, in view of the importance to Burma of this large flood of immigration, some such arrangement should be arrived at. Further details of the trade Order are fully set out, and if any hon. Member has any point to put with regard to them, I hope to be able an answer them, with the permission of the House, later in the Debate.
In conclusion, I would sum up by saying that this matter has been considered for many years, that it affects vital trade interests, and that it is essential that this Order should be passed in order to avoid uncertainty and dislocation of trade. It is our hope that these two countries may start upon their independent course uninfluenced by prejudices and undisturbed by too rapid a sundering of bonds before the important trade negotiations are undertaken this year; and I hope that British trading interests will reflect on the better opportunities that will be offered by patience and respect now, and, later, on the real interests of the two countries, with which future cordial relations are desired.

8.55 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I am sure that the House will have appreciated the opening sentences of the Under-Secretary of State for India, and it is a tragic coincidence that some of us were attending a memorial service to-day in memory of one whom we shall greatly miss. I feel that we miss his presence especially now. We appreciate the fact that he came into the House at an advanced age after wonderful service for the British Empire overseas. We realise that the great strain to which he put himself probably hastened his end.
My first inclination would be to go into the Lobby against the Government on this Order. On the other hand, I and my friends gave an undertaking at the time of our long fight on constitutional reform that we did not wish to embarrass the Government in seeing that the machinery of government in India should come into effect. If we were to go into the Lobby we could only do it by direct


opposition. I would like to have seen some postponement of this Order until the Conference which is to take place at a later period of the year. But there are certain major considerations that affect one of the most important industries in our country.
Fiscally, Burma has been exploited in the past by India. The Burmese have been penalised by high tariffs on British textiles and other goods marketed in that country. There are the Burmese duties on British goods and they have been laid down as solely such as are necessary for the revenue purposes of the Burmese Government. I wonder if the House realises the position. Since 1924 we have seen the textile trade of India and Burma decrease from 1,642 million square yards to 416 million square yards in 1936. The problem is a very real and urgent one and ought to call forth from this House all the best that we can do in this problem. But since we have started on this road, we find that our trade with Burma and India has decreased by no less than three-quarters. It is a solemn thought. It has been indicated that the negotiations that have been recently taking place have been carried out by an official or his assistant from Burma, and Indian officials at Delhi. It seems to me a most astonishing fact that this conference should have taken place without regard to the future safeguarding of our interests and the future position of Japan.
We ought to remember that Burma with no industries to protect is penalised. We recognise the very close links between the Indian and the Burmese trade, but we must not forget that while the Indian labourer goes into Burma to work, he takes back a vast amount of wealth into India which is of very great advantage. If you look through the Order you will find various phrases again and again about the interests of British India and Burma but there is not a single sentence in connection with this country. I find that in the last 20 years I have ventured at very great risk to prophesy what sort of a future our trade in the East is likely to have. I have always been described as an alarmist. Unfortunately all my alarms have been justified. I know we are often told that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, but we do not seem to appreciate the fact that in the East we have lost the great market

of China. Our exports there decreased from 292,000,000 square yards in 1924 to less than 8,000,000 square yards. Something should be done, unless British prestige is not to be affected more and more in the Far East, such as clearing out of Hankow and that sort of thing. We have always been told about the policy of good will as a solvent for our troubles. We have just heard the Under-Secretary of State for India speaking, but he did not tell us that since 1932 when we started on this road our textile exports in yards to Burma have decreased by half. Here we have been this afternoon talking for hours about what is, after all, a comparatively trivial matter, a small matter, but this is a subject that really affects a very great population. Talk about three years; at the present rate we shall, in eight years, have lost our trade with India and Burma entirely. That is a solemn fact; it is our last great market. I cannot go into the Lobby against the Government, but I do ask the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to give a categorical pledge to this House that when these discussions take place he and the President of the Board of Trade will use the whole of the economic power of this country and the British Colonial Empire in order to see that some vestige of this great trade is preserved, and that we shall not calmly sit by and see the whole of it transferred to India or to Japan.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May I first associate myself very completely with the well deserved tribute which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) paid to our late colleague Sir Reginald Craddock? In common with others of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite it was my good fortune to co-operate with him on the Joint Select Committee for many long months. Subsequently we engaged in controversy of a friendly character across the Floor of this House. I can never hope to meet anyone who, in the midst of heated controversy, could display such charm and kindliness as Sir Reginald Craddock. It was always a pleasure to listen to his observations, drawn from such wide experience as he possessed. Many of us learned much by listening to him while he was addressing this House, and the House will indeed be the poorer for having lost his contributions to our discussions. We have just


listened to a speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth in which he told us that he had already made five prophecies and he ventured another one. I was much interested in what he said. If there is to be a boxing match between him and the hon. Gentleman opposite, he is going to take good care not to knock him out to-night. It is to be only a species of shadow boxing, for he will not undertake the odium of turning out the Government upon a Measure on which he engaged for so long in virulent and vigorous opposition.
I do not propose to occupy the attention of the House for more than a minute or two, as I have another engagement, but I want to say one word. In the last Parliament hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted the responsibility of passing the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act. We, from a different point of view, opposed the Government over many details of that legislation, and we do not now withdraw one iota of the contentions we then advanced. The hon. and gallant Member has said that that legislation is now the law of the land and that we cannot, therefore, go back over that somewhat familiar ground, but hon. Members opposite must take the major share of responsibility for that legislation. It was theirs and they must accept the consequences, be they good or be they bad. They did not grant to India or to Burma that full measure of self-government which, many of us here desired, but they granted it within certain limits, and within those limits they must now face the consequences.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the condition of the people of Lancashire cries aloud for attention. I do not speak as a Lancashire Member, but as one who is interested in this Lancashire question in so far as it relates to this discussion. Therefore, I take an objective point of view to some extent, and I ask permission to say just this to those here who represent Lancashire: I venture to demur to the suggestion that the condition of Lancashire is mainly due to the failure of the appropriate treatment of India and Burma, from their point of view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he hoped that at the forthcoming discussions or conferences the hon. Gentleman would use all the force of

the economic power at the disposal of this country in bringing pressure to bear on India and Burma so as to secure better concessions for this country. I wonder what he means by applying full economic pressure. [An HON. MEMBER: It is like you applying a strike."] Then we are to have such pressure put upon India and Burma. I venture to say that that will be a disastrous policy. By all means fight at this conference for any legitimate concessions which will assist Lancashire, but we cannot go back upon the fact we have granted to India and to Burma some measure of self-government.

Sir H. Croft: Without fighting, would it not be possible to indicate to India and Burma that as they treat us so we shall have to treat them?

Mr. Jones: That might be an interesting point of contention between the hon. and gallant Member and myself. For the moment I am addressing myself to his request that the Government should bring to bear upon Burma's representatives all the economic power at their disposal. Those are somewhat menacing terms to use. If we want to keep this Empire together the way to do it is not by bringing to bear upon a smaller area, a weaker section of the Empire, all the economic power at our disposal for our own benefit. If there is a meaning at all to this thing that we call the Empire, it surely is that we are prepared to work together for the common good, and not for the good of one particular section. If that be so, what is the use of talking about bringing to bear all the economic pressure that this country possesses, for the sake of one section within the Empire?
I wish the Lancashire people all possible success in their efforts to revive their industry. The hon. Member need not sneer; that statement is made quite honestly, as honestly as he ever said anything himself. I can arrogate that claim to myself without fear of challenge. But when I say that I still reassert that, now that we have embarked upon the road of giving Burma some measure of self-government, we must enable them, in the first place, to safeguard the interests of their own people. I asked the hon. Gentleman, in an interruption, whether India and Burma would be separately represented at the conference, and I gather the answer was "Yes," though


how they were to be represented separately was not quite clear. For my part, now that we have taken the steps we took two years ago, we must enable those people as speedily as possible to find their own feet, to stand upon their own feet and to learn gradually the art of self-government.
That is all I propose to say upon this matter. We shall therefore not oppose the Government in the proposal which is embodied in this and the subsequent White Papers. We shall offer no opposition whatsoever. I merely say that it seems to be an inevitable concomitant of the proposals which have been carried through this House after so much discussion a year or two ago, that in so far as, with the good will of our own country, India and Burma can establish cordial trade relations and profitable relationship, we wish them every possible success. If, out of those trade relationships, Lancashire can derive some substantial economic benefit, no one will be more pleased than those who are associated with me on this side of the House.

9.16 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles: The Under-Secretary of State gave a very true and artistic picture of the relations between Burma and India, but I believe that he did not give a complete picture. There are other countries that will also be taken into consideration at the end of the three-year period. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the three-year period is a maximum or a minimum. We think that three years should be the maximum time for the reconsideration of this agreement. An hon. Gentleman who is a friend of mine read the agreement to mean that it must be reconsidered in three years, but I read it as meaning that it might be extended for four, five, six, seven, or even 10 years. My constituents are particularly interested in this trade, and that is the reason why we protest. It must be admitted that, when the trade agreements are considered at the end of three years, everybody in this country will have to take a certain amount of risk. In Lancashire they are well prepared to take a risk, having lost three-quarters of their trade with India during the past five or six years. They think that things cannot get any worse. They would like all these trade agreements to be put upon the Table and reconsidered.
Burma will have to consider them, of course, and make the trade agreement which will be of most advantage to herself. The same is true of India and of this country. There may be other countries to be considered at the same time. It cannot be denied that when India put a high tariff upon sugar she completely ruined the Java sugar trade. Even when I left India, Australia was beginning to send commodities there to an increasing extent every year. A very interesting book came out three weeks ago, written by a man who has stood for Parliament. He was travelling to Australia, and he pointed out that Australia was thinking of markets not only in the United Kingdom but in the East, in Japan and India. If we have given Burma these rights of self-government, she ought to be well capable in the space of three years of reviewing the whole thing and of deciding what would be best for her.
In the United Kingdom, we feel certain that when these agreements come to be reconsidered we shall gain some advantage in Lancashire. As the Under-Secretary stated, among the principal exports are oil, teak and rice. There is no doubt that the great Burma Oil Company has the monopoly of the Indian market. The price of petrol in India may be more expensive so far as I know, than in almost any other part of the world, but the Burma Oil Company has always kept the price of kerosene oil down very low for the sake of supplying cheap illumination for the poorer people in India. We can see looming up, perhaps in the near future, the possibility of an oil war there, because new oil wells are being developed in the Persian Gulf, under the control of United States companies. It is just possible that in future the Burma Oil Company will not have the monopoly in India. I was reading a speech by the chairman of the Burma Oil Company in which he said that if their market in India were threatened they would have to take steps elsewhere. There is no doubt, from reading the Debates in what was the Legislative Assembly at Delhi, that the Indian Congress politicians are anxious for India to grow more rice and not to import it from Burma. Even with improved methods of cultivation, it will not be possible, I think, for them to grow sufficient food in India to feed that vast population, and they will always be dependent upon Burmese or Javan rice, principally upon


Burmese rice. For that reason the people of Burma need not be afraid. The Indian Government will always have to depend upon Burma if they want to supply cheap food to their people.
For all those reasons, I think it shows a very great lack of confidence in the people to whom you have granted this new Constitution in India and Burma to say that if they are capable of doing so much—you expect so much from them already—at the end of three years they are to be able to decide trade agreements for themselves. When all these things are put upon the Table, we feel in Lancashire that there may be more employment and prosperity for our people.

9.23 p.m.

Major Procter: In discussing this matter, which is very vital to Lancashire, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench said that we should merely go to a conference and that we should manifest good will. I do not see how, by mere words, you can carry on a negotiation unless there is effective force behind the words that you use. Members of the party opposite will remember that we tried good will. When Mr. Ghandi was violating the law and when there were strikes and the boycotting of Lancashire goods, Members opposite and members of the trade unions feted Mr. Ghandi. Lancashire girls even kissed him as a manifestation of their good will. It was not until the British Government put Mr. Ghandi and his followers in gaol that the boycott was stopped. We have tried methods of good will in India. When India took part in the Ottawa Agreement, she was allowed the same treatment in every part of the Empire as Lancashire, with the result that Indian trade in textiles increased over 206 per cent. in Ceylon, and 108 per cent. in Malaya.
In the first paragraph reference was made to this Order which states that the proposals were for the purpose of preventing undue disturbance of trade between India and Burma, but what about the disturbance of trade between Lancashire and Burma? That is the point that concerns Lancashire Members. I ask the hon. Gentleman why should India object to what we propose? What will be the situation under this Order? India will be able to send into Burma Indian textile products without

duty, whereas Lancashire must pay 20 per cent. It was Lancashire and the rest of Britain that helped to build up and protect Burma and India. Yet the Lancashire manufacturer is to be treated as if he were a foreigner in the British Empire. We strongly object to receiving less favourable treatment than India. Why should India object to our having the same free market in Burma that she herself possesses? Lancashire has shown good will to India. When I first became a Member of this House I advocated that we should buy more raw cotton from India to help her and to show good will. In 1922 we bought Indian raw cotton worth £959,000,000 sterling—I am sorry, I mean £959,000.

Mr. Ede: What do a few noughts matter?

Major Procter: It is far better to have an error of the lips than an error of mind. From January to November this year we brought from India raw cotton worth £4,713,000.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): What has this to do with the Order now before the House?

Major Procter: I was trying to show that the manifestation of our good will in the way we have done it is more eloquent than the words of hon. Members opposite; and in setting out what we have purchased from India to show that we can meet the objections of India to our opposition to this Order. Lancashire cotton exports to Burma have declined badly. In 1934 we exported to Burma 36,000,000 square yards and last year only 25,000,000 square yards, whereas Japan exported 42,000,000 square yards in 1934 and 126,000,000 square yards last year. In the period 1919 to 1931, when Labour was in office, they allowed the duties to be increased from 11 per cent. to 25 per cent. without making any protest on behalf of Lancashire. It may have been a matter of good will towards India, but it has been disastrous in Lancashire.
When these trade agreements are finally ratified and stabilised, I hope that the words "Japanese goods" will be sharply defined. India has put quotas on Japanese goods, but the Japanese in order to defeat the quotas instead of sending in long pieces of cloth have cut them up into short lengths, just what a woman


requires for a sari. I hope that when the three-year period is up the new agreement will not be made as this one has been, by someone sitting in Delhi, without Lancashire being represented or consulted, but that accredited Lancashire representatives will be heard. By this Order Lancashire has been called on to pay the price of political peace. I hope the Government will use stronger methods. If India and Burma will not give the Lancashire cotton trade a square deal then we should treat them as they have treated us—as foreign countries in so far as trade agreements are concerned —and I am certain that greater concessions will be made to Lancashire than have been obtained by the so-called good will methods that have been advocated by the Labour Members opposite.

9.34 p m.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: The Debate takes one back several months to the time when my hon. Friends and I fought the question of Indian reform. As then, we have had a Member of the Government proposing to give away what is in our opinion a vital British interest; a Member of the Conservative party robustly objecting to what we call surrender; and then a Member of the Opposition defending the National Government from Conservative attack. We have seen that on several occasions in this House. The proposal in the present Order is founded on two reasons—the one to prevent undue disturbance of trade between India and Burma, which we agree, of course, is necessary, and the other to safeguard the economic interests of Burma during the period of three years. I would ask the Under-Secretary how the economic interests of Burma are safeguarded by preventing Burma from lowering her tariff on Lancashire goods going into Burma, in the interest solely of the Indian millowners of Bombay and Arhmednagar. I can understand Bombay requiring a high duty on Lancashire cotton imports, because they want to protect their own interests, but Burma has no textile industry. Why is Burma, although nominally separated from India, to be tied to her fiscally?
The British Government on many occasions, when it has given so-called freedom to dependencies, has always given fiscal freedom with it, irrespective of whether that has been in the interests of our

unemployed in Lancashire or elsewhere in this country; but why, when we gave India fiscal freedom, did we not insist that India should give her late dependency of Burma fiscal freedom also? The reason for that is plain. It was because the late Secretary of State for India said in Debate that we could not do this because India would not accept it. Is not that rather a cowardly attitude for the Government of this great Empire to assume? Surely we should look after the weak; surely it is in accordance with our principle—the "Sermon on the Mount" principle on which we rule this Empire—that we should sometimes look after Burma, as well as the unemployed in Lancashire.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Chorlton: It is a little difficult to join in the Debate on this important subject, but I think it will be possible within the rules of order to draw attention to what appeared to be real hardships. The Under-Secretary said at the beginning that the Order was based on an outline, that is to say, a lot of new words were introduced into it, and the first question I want to ask is whether the original wording contained no reference to this country, because the outstanding feature of the Order is the utter neglect of the paramount authority. It seems very strange that not only are we never mentioned, either directly or otherwise, but no real opportunity arises out of it, except by the good will of India and Burma, for us to take any action whatsoever. A minimum period of three years is laid down, and that can only be altered either by the Governor-General of India giving notice to the Governor of Burma or the other way about.
If we make trade agreements, as it is suggested we are about to do, upon what basis do we make them? Apparently we have no authority. This Paper gives us no authority to do anything. Must we go therefore, and beg that a trade agreement be entered into? These two countries can go on, and India, being the stronger, will go on, exactly as the Order now states; that is to say, we are never going to be any better off, not only for the period of three years, but for all the years that follow. It is astounding, when we know how the whole country at the present time is looking for export trade, that the Government instead of trying to help the export


trade, are apparently doing their best to hinder it. The only real way to improve the conditions in North-East Lancashire, where this industry is settled, and which is very nearly a distressed area, is by improving our export trade, and bringing there employment for the people in the trade which they know best. I am disappointed that more Members on the Labour benches have not spoken. I hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is going to speak, because, after all, the people who are really suffering under this agreement are the Lancashire operatives. The people who are out of work in North-East Lancashire are working people, and this is another nail in their coffin.
As to the actual agreements regarding which, it is suggested, negotiations are about to begin, the Under-Secretary said he thought there would be one representative from Burma, one representative from India, and, if Japan were concerned, one Japanese representative; but he did not make it clear to me that in every negotiation that took place there would be a representative from this country. I know, of course, that it is not in the White Paper, but, if he will kindly give some definite undertaking to that effect, it will be of considerable assistance. I think, also, that all who are engaged in cotton spinning will feel that the Governmental principle in regard to trade agreements, of offering something to those who are expert in the trade, is a wrong principle on which to go; no other country does it.
An hon. Member who spoke from above the Gangway distorted the words of my hon. Friend when he suggested that we were going to use trade agreements as threats. My hon. Friend meant nothing of the sort. When you make an agreement, you assemble on either side all the relevant factors from which an agreement can be made. But here we have the extraordinary position that a man goes from Burma to India—to Delhi—to make an agreement with Japan. No regard whatsoever is paid to the trade which is suffering on this side and which ought to have been attended to in the first instance. I do not wish to go on, but I should like to refer to that valuable natural export from Burma of which the Under-Secretary spoke. Is not that already provided for? I do not think there is any fear in the direction that he

indicated, or that there would have been any risk in making some change.
Our final request is that notice will be given, in any case within the three years, which cannot be exceeded, and that, in the negotiations which take place, representatives from the trades concerned shall be allowed to take part. The matter has now been carried through and cannot be altered, nor do we wish to alter it, but we want to prevent the risk of anything like it happening again. Anyone like myself, whose forebears have lived in Lancashire for many years, will feel that the outstanding feature, not only in this Order but throughout the whole of the debates on India, has been the extraordinary neglect of the ordinary Lancashire working man. Every consideration was shown to India, and now to Burma, but not to the Lancashire working man. I hope that in reply the Under-Secretary will ease our minds and make sure that there will be no failure in this respect in the future as there has been in the past.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hesitate very much to enter into this Debate, but. I was taunted so much by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) that I determined to say a few words. This Debate reminds me of grand opera; we have listened to speeches that I am sure I have heard dozens of times before from exactly the same hon. Members. When we discussed the India Bill we had the same arguments, especially from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). It is rather surprising that Lancashire to-night has been supported in its claim by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth and the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). I should be sorry to think that Lancashire had condescended to ask them to plead its case. The whole of Lancashire is of course very much interested in these proposals, and we are all very anxious that the Government should do everything they possibly can to increase our export trade from this country to India and Burma. But I cannot understand the argument used about these proposals, because hon. Members are very inconsistent. They object to Burma and India putting up customs duties and tariff walls against us, but they are the very people in this House


year in and year out who have advocated tariff walls to prevent even a yard of cloth or an ounce of anything coming in free to this country.

Sir H. Croft: Against India and Burma?

Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Member knows more about this subject than I do, and I hope he will deal very gently with me as I hope to deal with him before I sit down. The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) was the least helpful. He wanted us to discard good will towards India and Burma and to use some effective force. He nearly used the words "big stick." Whether he used them or not, that is exactly what he meant. He ought to realise that we have got past that stage long ago. I will venture one or two reasons why Lancashire has lost part of its export trade to these countries. No section of this House regrets the loss of our export trade more than we do on these benches, and we wish we could do something to help to increase that trade. I am not, however, very much impressed by the old argument of the Tory party about the sufferings of the working man. It is like the old story about the widow; she is brought in on every convenient occasion.
Let me give a few reasons why we have lost our export trade. We cannot be continually sending from Lancashire to these parts of the world machinery to manufacture on the spot the very textile commodities that we used to export to them, and then expect that we can retain our export trade. We have been exporting textile machinery of the very best type for years. The manufacturers of textile machinery in Lancashire have been immensely successful during the whole of the period that our exports of textile manufactures have been declining. As the export of our textile commodities has declined the business of the manufacturers of textile machinery has gone up in Lancashire. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Dodd: That is not a statement of fact. At least three textile machinery firms have closed down in Lancashire in the last few years.

Mr. Davies: A large number of textile mills have closed down, too. The hon.

Member called me to account some time ago when I said that I had seen advertisements in Eastern newspapers offering second-hand textile machinery from mills in Lancashire for sale in Eastern countries. I am not saving that sort of thing is wrong under the system under which we live, but I insist that we cannot manufacture textile machinery in Lancashire and export that machinery to these countries so that they can manufacture the goods on the spot and maintain our Lancashire export trade at the same time. Hon. Members complain about Bombay mill owners sending textile goods to Burma instead of Lancashire doing so. Is it not true that a great number of the textile mills in Bombay are financed by capital from this country? [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] The Under-Secretary said that in Burma there was about £40,000,000 of British capital employed. Am I to understand that no Bombay textile mills have ever been financed by British capital? Am I right in saying that a goodly number of textile mills in Bombay are financed by British capital?

Sir W. Smiles: As far as I know 90 per cent. of the capital invested in the Bombay and Arhmednagar mills is Indian capital and that less than 10 per cent. is British capital.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member admits that there is 10 per cent. I am therefore entitled to 10 per cent. of the argument. I should not be a bit surprised if many years ago there was no Indian capital; that it was practically, all British. We will leave it at that. In spite of differences of opinion on this matter of imports and exports I would say this: Hon. Members for Lancashire' have been complaining about the type of person sent to Delhi and elsewhere to negotiate these agreements. That means that the Government they have put into office are not fit to negotiate for Lancashire. It is well known that one-tenth of the membership of this House comes from Lancashire. There are 62 Lancashire Members here, and there is not a single Member for the whole of Lancashire in the Cabinet. I am as certain as I stand here that the neglect of the conditions of the people of Lancashire is in part due to the fact that we have nobody in the Cabinet from the County Palatine.

Sir W. Smiles: Is not the Minister of Education a Lancashire man?

Mr. Davies: I was referring to Lancashire Members, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) will allow me to correct his geography, Westmorland is not in Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman is Member for a Westmorland division.

Sir W. Smiles: But he is a Lancashire man.

Mr. Davies: I repeat that the distressing conditions of the people engaged in the textile industry in Lancashire are beyond description, and I am not sure that Members from outside the county would believe us when we say that there are scores if not hundreds of men and women employed in that industry to-day who, because of the depression, are working full time at wages which are lower than the sum they would receive if they were on public assistance.

Sir H. Croft: To which part of the Order does this refer?

Mr. Davies: To the same part as the hon. and gallant Member's speech referred to. But in spite of the fact that I belong to the Opposition I again join in asking the Government to do all they can to bring about a revival of the export trade from Lancashire.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Radford: The best part of the hon. Member's speech was his last sentence. It was almost the only helpful sentence he uttered. He and his colleagues always employ two methods of explaining the depression in Lancashire and the loss of the Indian market. They say that we have exported textile machinery to India and other Eastern countries which are now providing themselves, to some extent, with the cotton goods which they require. Alternatively, they argue that the mills in India and elsewhere have been put up by British capital. I do not wish to weary the House by going into a point which has already been dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), but to-day by pure accident I was speaking to one of the best known British-Indian merchants who was going to the White City Exhibition. This gentleman has lived in India for 25 years

and I raised this question with him because when speaking in the Gorton by-election last night I was challenged on this very subject. My friend had with him another man, equally knowledgeable, and one of them told me that the amount of British capital in these mills was 10 per cent., while the other put it at not higher than 15 per cent. All the rest of the capital, I am informed, is Indian.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member care to tell the House what his friend has been doing in India for the last 25 years.

Mr. Radford: My friend is not in India now. He is in Manchester doing his best to work up the export trade with other parts of the world which still afford an opportunity for Lancashire goods. As regards the export of textile machinery, if the great British textile machinery firms had not sold their machinery to the people who wanted that machinery, then those people would have bought American, Italian or French machinery. The people who wanted the machinery would have obtained it in any case, and we should have missed the trade involved in supplying what we did supply. I do not think that even the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) giving the yardage of cloth by which our exports have decreased in recent years, can convey to the House a correct impression of the extent of our loss. In the last pre-war year 3,000,000,000 yards was the figure of our export to India and that has to be compared with 400,000,000 yards now. One must not wander too far from the terms of the Order, but I think I may mention that the export to the Chinese market has fallen from 700,000,000 yards to 8,000,000 yards or has been practically destroyed.

Mr. Rowson: Can the hon. Member say how much we exported to Japan before the War?

Mr. Radford: I have not those figures but if the hon. Member has them he will have an opportunity later of quoting them. Then there is the very anomalous position of India vis-a-vis Burma as far as this trade is concerned. The Simon Commission drew special attention to the extraordinary situation created when it was decided to regard Burma as a part of British India. Since 1921, the report pointed out, as it were almost accidentally


and merely for purposes of ease of administration, Burma had been regarded as part of British India. That was all right at that time and for that purpose, but those who made the arrangement did not visualise the effect of the fiscal autonomy convention which began to operate about the same date and enabled India to pile up import duties against British goods. The result was that although Burma is as much a separate country from India as Great Britain is, being separated from India by impenetrable mountains and forests and the nearest ports of India being 800 to 1,000 miles distant from Rangoon, the Indian cotton goods manufacturers were able to send their goods into Burma free, while British cotton goods had to pay an import duty of 25 per cent. It is true that the 25 per cent. has recently been reduced to 20 per cent. Under the standstill agreement, I understood from the Under-Secretary, the period was to be five years but that it had been agreed to reduce it to three years. No doubt when my hon. Friend replies he will deal further with that question because this part of the Order says:
This Order shall come into force on separation, and shall remain in force for three years or until twelve months have elapsed from the giving by the Governor-General of India to the Governor of Burma or by the Governor of Burma to the Governor-General of India, of notice to terminate the operation thereof, whichever is the longer period.
Surely that means a three years period which may, by agreement, be 30 years; which may indeed go on ad infinitum. As long as the representatives of Burma and India remain content with the status quo so long can it continue and so long will it be impossible for Britain in making trade agreements with either India or Burma to be able to secure equitable terms for her exports to Burma.
I support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth said relative to the trade agreement which is shortly to be negotiated between this country and India and Burma. It is not a case of adopting a threatening attitude. These are matters of business and it is no use thinking that because we have given India self-government we are going to get sentimental gratitude from the Bombay mill-owners, and that they will be anxious to let our goods in on better terms. There is no ill will in two busi

ness houses endeavouring to secure honourably and fairly the best terms and a fair sharing of the mutual benefit of the trading between them. Let our representatives take great care that India does not overlook that, whereas our manufactured goods going there have to bear a duty of 20 per cent., we let her linseed and other commodities come in free of duty. The India trade in linseed to this country has grown by leaps and bounds and India has benefited enormously. Let us see that the best possible bargain is made for Britain. The Under-Secretary tells us that to-night we are going to discuss matters with regard to the welfare of India and Burma, and we do not mind doing it, but when the time comes to negotiate the new trade agreement, let British interests be the first consideration of our representatives.

10.7 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: Seeing that we are going to bind our hands for at least three years, what is going to happen about the trade agreements that we are told are to be negotiated during the next few months? How can we bring this agreement to a standstill between India and Burma? Some of us would like to know if it is going on in perpetuity. After all, trade ought to be a two-way traffic. I supported Imperial reciprocity for many years before it was as popular as it is to-day. I have always believed in reciprocity, and reciprocity does not mean tariffs on one side and Free Trade on the other. I think the time has come when the representatives of India should realise who their best friends are, and not allow their tariff policy to be dictated by a few manufacturers in Bombay. Successive Governments, Conservative, Liberal, Labour and National, tried to negotiate with Indian administrators in the old days, before they got self-government, and tried to get them not to advance their tariffs against Lancashire goods, but failed miserably. Now that they have self-government they seem to be binding themselves for at least three years, and possibly much longer. I want to comment on the remark by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that we complain about the representatives whom we sent to Delhi to voice our opinions. We are not complaining about the quality of them. We are complaining that we have never been consulted at all, and had no representative there, as far


as I can gather. The hon. Member also made the point that the Bombay manufacturers had a right to compete against Lancashire manufacturers, and that we had sent them machinery from Lancashire. Of course we have. If we had not, Germany, Austria and others would have sent it.
We complain that their goods come in here absolutely free and, when we want to send anything there, we are met with hostile tariffs. What is good for the goose cannot be bad for the gander. We want fair trade between India, Burma and the British Isles. This is the last chance that we shall have in connection with this agreement, and I ask the Under-Secretary to consider how Lancashire has suffered in the past, and to see if something cannot be done. He represents the British Parliament and not the India Parliament or the Burma Parliament. I want him to represent the voice of British trade and see if something cannot be done to look after the interests of British trade. We have no desire to quarrel with India or with the Indian representatives. We ask for fair play to everyone concerned. We have shown them, both by example and by precept, what we are prepared to do for them and it behoves them to reciprocate and to show a kindly feeling towards the trade of this country.
I need go no further than to give the example of the figures showing how Lancashire has increased her consumption of Indian cotton. We have increased our imports during the last few years from £1,000,000 to over £4,000,000. Action such as that deserves some sort of reward. We want India and Burma to realise who are their best friends. We do not want an agreement concluded between them which may go on for ever. We seem to have no voice in the cessation of them. We want to ensure that representations can be made by the home Government to Burma and India for their cessation in due course and at the same time we want trade agreements between Burma and Britain and between India and Britain and not that all the trade agreements shall simply be between Burma and India. I ask the Under-Secretary to study our interests.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Spens: In saying a word on behalf of other than Lancashire interests I hope Lancashire Members will not assume for

a moment that one does not realise that Lancashire has suffered by reason of the protective tariff put up by India and Burma some years ago. The complaints of Lancashire to-night appear to be complaints against the result of the imposition of that tariff, and what Lancashire is crying out for is that now or later some steps should be taken to lower that tariff and to allow Lancashire goods once again to get into Burma. The point of view that I want the Committee to consider is that we are faced with the fact that behind that protective tariff, which has included Burma, there has grown up an immense trade between Burma and India in which this country is vitally interested. There are £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of British money invested in Burma in oil, hardwood and so forth. Burma supplies the India market with between 60 and 70 per cent. of her exports in return for some 40 per cent. of exports from India to Burma.

Mr. Romer: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the Burmese hardwoods come into this country with the advantage of 10 per cent. compared with hardwoods from Siam, and that that is of very great advantage to them?

Mr. Spens: I am dealing at the moment with the India-Burma trade which has grown up and exists at the present time. What happened when the separation came is what the House is really considering. Is it right that that huge inter-India-Burma trade, in which many people in this country are vitally interested, should or should not continue? [Interruption.] Certainly there is British capital in it, and British capital means wages for British workmen. The House has to consider whether or not there ought to be an interval as long as three years during which the trade arrangements should be allowed to continue before there should be a radical alteration.

Sir W. Smiles: Can India get teak wood from any place in the world except Burma?

Mr. Spens: I should say very likely not. If you import goods into one country you have to export goods from that country. I believe very firmly that, if Lancashire cotton goods are going again into Burma, this country will have to take something from Burma in exchange. If this country is to take vast masses of the present


Burmese exports that go into India, then India will not get them, and the situation which Lancashire is envisaging is indeed a great change. Surely, there must be time in which arrangements should be made and negotiations carried out in order to carry out that change. Lancashire Members are right, and I am fully with them, in hoping that during this period, three years or whatever it be, Lancashire will be able to persuade Burma to take Lancashire goods, and they will have to persuade Burma to send to this country, and find importers in this country of, Burmese goods, which will come in exchange. That is the job which Lancashire will have to do. Do hon. Members of the House think that it can be done by threats that we will put up tariffs against Burma? It is a much more difficult job than that. You have to create the channel of trade once again, and I do not think that it is impossible. I believe that it can be done by negotiation and good will a great deal more than by any sort of threats to Burma or India such as we have heard from one or two quarters to-night.

Sir H. Croft: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he considers, when he puts the capital point of view, the enormous amount of capital invested in the various textile industries which did this enormous trade with India and Burma?

Mr. Spens: I agree that capital is invested in this country. The point of view I am putting is that of British capital in Burma at the present time. We have this trade which is bound to be dislocated, in my view—I may be entirely wrong—if violent action which some Lancashire Members appear to advocate were, in fact, put into operation. I am appealing to the House that it is most reasonable, having regard to the fact that we have to accept the fact that this trade has grown up between Burma and India, that if you are going to alter it there must be a reasonable time to negotiate and make the requisite arrangements. All that this Order means is that the two Governments have come to the conclusion that for a period of three years no alteration should be made. Surely, that is a reasonable arrangement when you look at the facts. It is the result, I agree, of the high tariff against our goods put on in 1921 or 1924, I forget which year, but we have to face

the facts of to-day, and the facts are that as there is this trade between Burma and India it would be ill advised to disturb it unduly and rashly, and that there ought to be a reasonable period of time in which to negotiate and rearrange trade in the interests of Lancashire. On these grounds I hope the Order will be passed by the House.

10.22 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but if hon. Members will allow me I should like first of all to join with those who have paid testimony to the work of the late Sir Reginald Craddock. I specially want to do so not only because I met him constantly in recent years and on the Select Committee, but also because I am probably the only Member of the House who knew him personally at the height of his powers as Home Member of the Government of India, and before he became Governor of Burma. It is a somewhat tragic coincidence that we should be discussing these matters on which he was such an expert so soon after his death. I have been extremely interested in the Debate as it has progressed, but I must say, if hon. Members will excuse the statement, that a great deal of it has had very little reference to the matter upon the Order Paper. Many of the speeches to which we have listened have been a plea, eloquently made, on behalf of Lancashire, a plea with which I have the greatest sympathy, for an alteration in the duties placed by India and Burma upon textile goods from this country. I agree with every word that has been said about the hardship from which Lancashire is suffering, and I hope as keenly as any other hon. Member that when we get to negotiations with India, which under this Order will for the time being include negotiations with Burma, we shall be able to get better terms than we have now for the export of Lancashire cotton goods. But that really has very little to do with the Order.
This Order deals with the position as it is to-day, continues the state of things which exists at the moment between India and Burma for a further period of three years as a minimum, and it is absolutely essential that the present tariff conditions as between the two should continue if you look at the position of the trade between the countries concerned. About 48 per


cent. of Burmese exports go to India and 42 per cent. Of Burmese imports come from India. It is clear that if there is not some continuation of the present position until there has been ample time for the new Governments to get into their stride and make such new arrangements as they may decide upon, we may get complete chaos in the trade between these two countries.

Earl Winterton: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to remind the House that both at the Burma Round Table Conference and in the Joint Select Committee the expert evidence on that matter was completely against the arguments used the other way to-night?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I am glad my Noble Friend reminded the House of that fact. The expert evidence was all to the effect that absolute chaos would ensue if there was not a continuation of the present system until there was ample time for the whole thing to be reconsidered. There is another point. My hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken so strongly in favour of Lancashire have, in effect, suggested that if this Order were not passed, Burma would have no duties against Lancashire. On what authority do they say that? On what authority do they tell the House that the position of Lancashire would be necessarily better if this Order were not passed? We do not know what Burma might do; we do not know what the position might be then. I would remind the Committee that, as is stated in the Joint Select Committee's Report, the Government of Burma have said clearly that they expected that when separation took place their financial position might be somewhat difficult for a time and that they might have to look for revenue in new directions. The House will forgive me for speaking plainly, but the fact is that practically the whole of the speeches to-night have had nothing whatever to do with the Order.

Sir John Haslam: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Government of Burma cannot increase any tariff against India, but they can considerably increase the tariff against Lancashire?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It is not suggested that they are going to increase it —I am only asking what authority hon.

Members have for saying that if this Order were not passed, the position of Lancashire in Burma would be necessarily better than it would be if the Order were passed. I agree that it is a necessity that there should be a new trading agreement between this country and India and Burma.

Sir H. Croft: May I remind my hon. Friend that I did not suggest that this Order should not go through? What I and other hon. Members have said is that we agreed that the Order must go through, but we urged that if we supported His Majesty's Government on this, we should have a specific undertaking that the whole question would be reconsidered.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I do not entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. May I remind him that he said he was going into the Division Lobby to support the Government unwillingly, because he had given a pledge not to oppose these matters further? That was the only reason he gave for going into the Division Lobby in favour of this Order. Indeed, one of his hon. Friends said he was going to oppose the Amendment. That is not the point however. I have the greatest sympathy with the point of view of Lancashire, but the speeches that have been made have really been based on a misconception. What is wanted in connection with Lancashire is a new trade agreement, and I think that when we come to that we have a very strong case. The division which I represent for example has suffered very much from the continually increasing importation of Indian carpets, and the consequence is that I have no doubt we shall be able to put forward a strong case to induce India to help us as we help them. Nevertheless, I suggest that if this Order were not passed, the position of Lancashire would not necessarily be any better, and in fact it might be very much worse. The Order is essential in the present position for carrying on the trade between these two countries, which are so closely allied and interwoven in their daily operations that, if the Order were not passed, there might be complete chaos resulting from the separation of Burma. Therefore, I hope the Order will secure the full assent of the House to-night.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Cyril Entwistle: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said that speeches on behalf of Lancashire


had not been germane to this Order. I hope he will not think that I am guilty of a want of relevance to the Order, because I would like to deal specifically with paragraph 7 of Part 1 of the Order, which is concerned with its duration. We have had it said that the duration of this Order, which perpetuates the status quo between this country and Burma, is for a minimum of three years, and quite clearly that is only a minimum, because it says, "whichever is the longer period," so that if three years is the longer period, it will be three years, but if no notice is given by either the Government of Burma or the Government of India, there is apparently no limit to how long the agreement can continue.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I think the hon. Member cannot have been in the House when I myself drew attention to that fact.

Sir C. Entwistle: I was not quarrelling with the hon. Member for that, but I was emphasising that until one side or the other gives notice, this agreement can continue for an indefinite period, and what we are concerned with, as representing the interests of Lancashire, is to know where our own Government stand in this matter. I submit that the Under-Secretary of State has not quite satisfied us on that point, because we want to know where the initiative of this Government will be when we are getting near the expiration of this period. If the agreement is only to last three years, either one Government or the other will have to give 12 months' notice two years from the date when the Order comes into operation, so that when the first two years of the three-year period have expired, unless notice is given this must continue for three more years. What we want to know is whether the Government of this country will take the initiative when we are approaching the end of two years and enter into discussions with the Burmese Government carefully to consider what trade has transpired between the two countries in the interim period of two years, and to examine it in the light of the mutual interests of Burma and Great Britain, not of Burma and India.
As long as Burma is to have the advantage either way and to get all the advantages of a preference and so on, and does not want to offend India

because of its important trade, Burma will not be concerned in giving any improvement in the trade relations between Burma and this country. What we want is that our own Government, which represents our interests, shall stipulate that Burma shall be fully cognisant of all the advantages of making a fresh arrangement, if need be, at the earliest moment, and that is at the end of the three years. We in Lancashire have not liked this status quo being preserved for three years. The hon. Member for Kidderminster said it would be in the interests of this country, but we in Lancashire do not think so. We think the present relations between this country and India are not equitable so far as Lancashire is concerned, and we think India is not acting in her own best interests.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It seems to me that the hon. Member's whole argument is based on the idea that these duties must continue for a minimum period of three years, which is not the case at all. The whole of the duties might be removed by both countries if an agreement could be arrived at between them.

Sir C. Entwistle: But these Burmese duties on United Kingdom goods will remain as long as the Indian duties on United Kingdom goods remain. They are tied together for this period of three years. We disliked this period of three years very much, but as we were faced with a period of years, we preferred three years to five years, and it is on that basis that Lancashire has had to acquiesce in this arrangement. What we are now faced with is a possible indefinite continuance after the expiration of the three years. We want to know if the Government, at the earliest possible date when a review is possible, two years after this Order comes into operation and the 12 months' notice can be given will of its own initiative say that this arrangement is not intended to last more than three years. We want to know that the Government of its own initiative will open up discussions with Burma with a view to examining the course of the trade relations between our two countries in the two years, and if it is seen that it is to the advantage of Great Britain, that it should depart from the policy that India pursues, that Burma should be encouraged to do so, and if necessary we should be encouraged to give our


assistance in that matter. We are not satisfied that we have had a full assurance from the Government. We want to be sure that the Burmese Government will in two years be able if it is thought fit to have an alteration in the existing trade agreements.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Butler: In beginning my reply to the Debate I want to say again, as I have previously said, how much we sympathise with the difficulties with which Lancashire has had to contend. We have heard statements about the amount of British capital that has been involved there and the vast trade in natural products between Burma and India. It is said that there are British interests concerned on both sides of the question. Another feature of the Debate has been the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I think that following upon our many discussions on the Government of India Bill, my hon. and gallant Friend and his friends will not pursue to a division the question he has raised. I fully appreciate the attitude that he and his friends have adopted since those days of controversy some time ago. We feel quite at home here to-night hearing the points of view on all sides of the House.
I want to deal with some of the points raised. This Order is for an interim period. That is stated in the Preamble to the Order and the judgment of the Joint Select Committee and the view of the Government, and I think of the House during the passage of the India Bill, has been not to dislocate the trade in countries which may be affected in this matter. There is no advantage for India or Burma or this country in any such dislocation, and in this matter we do not wish to ignore the advice of the Joint Select Committee. This Order is for an interim period, as I have said. It has been suggested that in some respect it may make matters worse for the British exporter. On the contrary it does not make them worse but in some respects better. In regard to Japanese piece-goods allowed to be marketed there, hon. Members will see from page 7 that they will be limited to 42,000,000 yards. It is almost unnecessary for me to say that Japanese piece-goods compete with Lancashire goods, and this figure is under half of the total which entered Burma in 1932–33. To that extent the

position of the exporter is 50 per cent. better, and if hon. Members will turn to the figures they will see that the figures of Japanese imports are only two-thirds of the 62,000,000 yards which Japan imported in 1935–36.[Interruption.] I have tried to point out that there are advantages in this Order.
I believe that part of the anxieties of hon. Members who represent Lancashire has arisen from what paragraph 7 means, and as to whether this Order is for an interim period of a minimum of three years. The fact is, as the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) said, that the Order is for a minimum period of three years. He and his friends wish to know that this Order is not going on, as the other hon. Member who sits for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) said, in perpetuity, and it is my business to try to give him and the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford), who thought it might go on for 30 years, some sort of understanding that their fears on this subject have not a very great basis of fact. Not only do we believe that this interim Order will not go on, on exactly the same basis, in perpetuity, but we believe that almost immediately steps will be taken to negotiate a new agreement with Lancashire.
As I said in my opening remarks, it will be possible for the representatives of Lancashire to put their point of view, and the Government, through my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, will naturally take into consideration during those negotiations the point of view of the British exporter, as I believe my right hon. Friend has done in the past, and, I am sure, will do in the future. I go even further, and I think this will show hon. Members that we wish British interests to be considered and have every opportunity: were any agreement during the course of this year to result in such considerable alterations in the tariff schedule as to make the Order unworkable in its present form, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to introduce an amended Order, taking such alterations into consideration. I think that will show that we believe that there are possibilities of agreement under this Order itself. It is not our intention that the amending Order should depart from the general principle of the interdependence of Burma and India trade, but we have always admitted the possibility that Burma might


find it convenient in some categories to reduce her tariff level, and we have also wondered whether every item in this Order, which, I repeat, is for an interim period, would ultimately inure to the benefit of India.
That leads me to a consideration of the longer outlook. I have said that we have always envisaged the possibility that perhaps the interests of India were not entirely secured for ever by this Order. It is just possible that India may find that it is in her interest to give notice to terminate the Order, or that Burma may find that it is in her interests to give notice to terminate the Order, and I therefore think it is likely to be an interim Order. The hon. Member for Bolton asked whether the Government would be ready to put forward the point of view of the British exporter at any time, and I can say with safety that it will be the interest of the Board of Trade, if they are approached by British exporting interests, to put their point of view to the Governments concerned, and see that not only in the immediate future of this year, but, if necessary, in the later period, the points of view with which hon. Members are so closely associated are fully considered. I hope that that assurance will do something to show that we in the Government stand for British interests just as much as hon. Members on all sides of the House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked, as is his wont, a very pertinent question, which I do not want to shirk. He asked, How are the economic interests of Burma safeguarded by this Order? Because, to put it bluntly, Burma has no indigenous cotton industry to protect, why, therefore, should she have to adhere to the India tariff? I think that sums up the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite fairly. Burma has had to consider this point herself, and this is one of those difficult points to appreciate in the Order. She has come to the conclusion that she would rather adhere to the interdependence of her trade with India and not quarrel with India on this point, and that she will share in the tariff schedules in this manner rather than let them go, and risk the displeasure of India and the consequent effect on her more important natural products, on

which she depends so much. That is the issue. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not agree with it, but that is the position which Burma has taken up.
I would utter one word of warning to hon. Members who represent Lancashire. I agree that we all want to see the trade between Lancashire and Burma improved, but it is approximately one-tenth of the trade between Lancashire and India, and, therefore, for the sake of the smaller quantity of the Burma market, it is very much in the interest of Lancashire that trade in the Indian market should not be lost by disturbing Indian sentiment in this matter.
I want to take up a point which was mentioned by hon. Members about British export trade. The Government is very apprehensive of this aspect of the export trade. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was correct in saying that economic considerations have caused that trade to decline. There is the export of machinery and the growth of Indian industry itself, which has increased in the last few years in a most phenomenal manner, by one quarter of its production. Indian consumption has also increased. Together, they have resulted in the reduction, but we believe that considerations may arise which will in due course improve the position, or, at any rate, we hope so. We feel that while every opportunity ought to be given to British interests to negotiate in the near and distant future, nothing should be done at this stage to disturb the trade between India and Burma. We believe that if we did so the dislocation would do more harm than good to both sides, to ourselves, and to the world.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Immigration) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned. "—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following amendments:—
In the First Schedule, page 70, line 30, leave out the first 'of,' and insert 'or.'
In the First Schedule, page 75, line 11 (marginal note), after 'application' insert 'of'
In the Eleventh Schedule, page 250, line 21. leave out '1833,' and insert' 1883."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India and Burma (Transitory Provisions) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Miscellaneous Financial Provisions) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of

India (High Court Judges) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned. "—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned. "—[ Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament,"—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Counsellors) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned. "—[ Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India, Burma, and Aden (Transitory Provisions) (Taxation) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of


Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 1st March.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

10.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This is a short and simple Bill, and it will be unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments in view of the fact that the Bill has been discussed on the Financial Resolution, Second Reading and subsequent stages. The reason for this Bill being before the House is that the present Bill, under its terms, would expire in the course of the next three months, and if it did expire the Government would be unable to take any part in assisting migration. Although there may be minor differences, the House is generally agreed that the Government should be able to take part in assisting migration, and it is necessary for that purpose that the Bill should be renewed. When the question of renewing the Bill came before the Government, it was decided to make two alterations, both of which have been the subject of some criticism. The first Amendment is that the money which the Government is entitled to spend is reduced from £3,000,000 per annum to £1,500,000. Disappointment has been expressed in some quarters that this reduction has been made, but I think the House will understand that the first Bill was in the nature of an experiment, and no one quite knew what would be the necessary expenditure.
We have now had some years experience, and we know that in the maximum year, in which migration took place on a very considerable scale, the actual expenditure was just over £1,250,000. I think the House will probably agree that close budgeting, where it is possible, is

desirable, and in putting forward the figure of £1,500,000 we are putting forward a figure which we believe to be sound and reasonable and to have some relation to the practical possibilities. The criticism has been made in some quarters that it would have been desirable to maintain the old figure, or even to increase it, but in my submission that would only have brought us, as politicians, into ridicule and contempt. It is more sensible to deal with the actual possibilities, and we are now dealing with the real figure which we may require to ask Parliament to expend in a given year.
The other alteration is that the Government seek power to increase the contribution which they make to voluntary societies from a 50–50 basis to a 75–25 basis. This power is being sought because it has been found that in certain cases societies doing admirable work have been curtailed in their activities, especially during the lean years which have just passed, by the restriction of subscriptions received by them from the charitable public. The excellence of the work that is being done by a voluntary society is not necessarily proportioned to the appeal which it makes to the public, and it is the case that societies have found their excellent and beneficial activities curtailed by the fact that they cannot raise so much from the public. In that case, however much the responsible people may wish to assist them from Government funds, they have been limited by the Act of Parliament. Certain hon. Members have suggested that my right hon. Friend had some sinister motive—that perhaps he wished to use this extra 75 per cent. for kidnapping children and condemning them to a life of drudgery overseas. I do not believe that he had any such motive, but, even if he had, it would have been possible for him to follow it on the 50–50 basis. We believe that the work of the Overseas Settlement Board could be carried on more efficiently if we had power, as circumstances required, to make a grant of 75 per cent. from the taxpayers' money as against 25 per cent. raised from the public.
There have been minor criticisms of the Bill on points of detail, but on general principles I believe the House is agreed that it is desirable, if and when the position becomes favourable, as I believe and hope it may, that there should be some resumption of migration. I believe, also,


that the House is agreed that it is desirable that the Empire should be more fully populated by people of British stock. We have been criticised on the ground that we cannot do anything in regard to real big-scale migration by limiting ourselves to small-scale migration within the scope of the £1,500,000. If large-scale migration becomes a practical possibility again, and we can find sufficient numbers of people in this country who want to take up land in the Dominions, and also a Dominion Government willing to accept them in large numbers, we shall then have to deal with the position.

Mr. MacLaren: What about the land at home?

Marquess of Hartington: If the hon. Member will survey the land at home and find out the population per square mile on that land, and realise the vast areas which are under-populated or not populated in the Dominions, he will realise the importance and need of a well regulated migration scheme. If large-scale land settlement returns and we can produce a watertight scheme, a scheme fulfilling' our requirements, then it will be for the House to find the necessary money, but unless and until we can find such a scheme my right hon.. Friend is right in bringing forward this Bill, with its provision of £1,500,000. The House agrees with the general principle of the Bill, and although there has been criticism of minor points of detail, with which my right hon. Friend has dealt, I think the House is prepared to accept the Bill.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day six months."
May I first welcome back the Noble Lord after his very long journey, and, I hope, a successful one, to South Australia for the celebration of its centenary? I hope also that his visit will mean that we have knit together the bonds of Empire more closely than before. I say that especially after listening to the last Debate. I was shocked to hear the large number of wreckers there are in the House. I had no idea that there were so many men who do not believe in cooperation in the Empire. Nearly every speaker wished to support the break-up

of the Empire. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) for saying that if you want to hear speeches regarding co-operation in the Empire you have to come to this side of the House. We on these benches are as anxious as, even more anxious than, any hon. Members we have heard to-night to establish co-operation with our brothers and sisters in the Dominions overseas.
Regarding Empire settlement, I can say truthfully that I am a supporter of it under proper conditions. If proper conditions can be established and we can see opportunities of a livelihood for our people who go overseas, I have not the least objection to Empire settlement. Had this Bill been like the Act of 1922, there would have been no division upon it. My objection is to a particular feature of this Bill, and I am glad to have the opportunity of registering another vote against it on that ground. From the beginning of these discussions I have foreseen what is likely to happen if this Bill became law.
Prior to the introduction of the Bill an Inter-Departmental Committee inquired into the future of migration and made a number of recommendations with many of which I agreed, and with one of which I did not agree. That recommendation is now contained in the Bill, as a result of the Secretary of State having presided over that Inter-Departmental Committee. It was to the effect that instead of the 50–50 arrangement which we had for 15 years there should be a 75–25 arrangement when dealing with certain classes of migration through voluntary societies. I believe that the best co-operation with the Dominions is co-operation between the Government in this country and the Governments over-sea. I do not believe we ought to hand out money to voluntary societies for the purpose of transporting human beings from one end of the world to the other. By this Bill we are to provide 75 per cent. from this country to enable voluntary societies to carry, out one of these recommendations. That is to see that children who may be neglected, children who may be orphans, children who may be in poor law institutions can be sent oversea and used as little child slaves in many cases. I opposed mui tsai in Hong Kong and I am opposed to restarting this system which we had already abolished.
I want this House to have an opportunity of voting against the restarting of such a scheme of sending young children abroad in that way. We had this system of sending for 18 years and many thousands of children were sent overseas to Canada, and as a result of the report of 1924 the Canadian Government and the British Government both felt that there was no argument for a continuance of that system and it was abolished. Now the present Secretary of State desires to restart it, and recommends that it should be restarted. If I wanted an argument in support of my case I can find one in the words which the Secretary of State used in his last speech in reply to my argument upon it. He said:
The type of migration to which the hon. Member and his party object is, not the migration of children in any circumstances but the migration of children under a system which means that they are boarded out in families in the Dominions. He has pointed out that in the past this boarding-out system was condemned by a Commission which travelled in Canada, and that it has resulted in many unsatisfactory cases in which children were treated as drudges in families. I would not contest that at all.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted the whole of my case. He continued:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the past that system did result in some cases in which children led a rather unhappy life in the homes where they were boarded out; and that experience would naturally make the Government think very carefully before deciding to approve in principle of the recommencement of any such scheme. There are very weighty arguments against the Government deciding to participate in any such scheme again, and they may very well come to the conclusion that they will not participate in such a scheme, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance to-day.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1937; col. 1498, Vol. 319.]
Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance which I think he ought to give, that he will not recommend his Government to restart a scheme in which there are no safeguards and no inspection in the interests of the children, I oppose the Bill. For these reasons I hope that a Division will be taken and that the House will vote in favour of young children born and bred in this country not being sent to any part of the world, in the Empire or outside it, to be used, as the right hon. Gentleman admits many of them were used, as little drudges. We ought to regard them as human beings.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: It was rather difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should accuse us of lack of a wish to co-operate with the Dominions and at the same time oppose a Bill which provides a means of co-operating with the Dominions. He is in favour of migration and settlement under proper conditions. That is our wish on this side, and we anxiously desire to co-operate with the Dominions in producing those conditions. A few months ago, Sir Bryan Fell, the late distinguished head of the Public Bill Office in this House wrote to the "Times" to call attention to the growing practice of curtailing the power of discussion and amendment of Bills because of the narrow drafting of the Money Resolutions on which they were based. This Bill is an excellent example of that growing habit. It is based upon a Money Resolution which provided for only two points. One was the extension of the 1922 Empire Settlement Act, and the other was the alteration of certain financial provisions. The result was that our Amendments were severely ruled out of order. One in particular that was put down by my friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) and myself, which provided for an Empire Development Board, was ruled out of Order. That is a measure which has been anxiously desired ever since the Commission of 1917 reported in favour of it, that Commission being the result of the Imperial Conference of 1911.
This Bill provides for schemes of settlement and development. The Secretary of State will persist in tying us advocates of settlement to settlement on the land. There are many wider schemes of development. He has told us that we must not expect much result from settlement on the land, one reason being the increased application of mechanisation to agriculture, but in Canada a very large number of fanners have turned from tractors to horse labour again for two reasons. It is better for the land and also much less expensive. I would ask him to recognise the fact that in Western Canada there is a considerable number of small, mixed farms which are paying their way. There are schemes of development that many of us advocate—we regret that the Secretary of State has in such schemes tied himself to the 50–50 principle—such as engineering works, the


development of existing harbours, the construction of new harbours and all forms of transport and afforestation. They might be encouraged by a real Empire Development Board, suggested by the Secretary of State. Such schemes would naturally give employment to large quantities of labour both at home and overseas.
There was a Departmental report published by a committee of which my right hon. Friend was chairman, admirably written, but it was a standstill, a marking time report and I regret that this is a marking time Bill. This is not the moment for marking time. It is possible to go to the Dominions in a large and generous spirit and ask them to develop our great Imperial possessions, and I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend sees in front of him great opportunity in the coming Imperial Conference, and that in common with the representatives of other parts of the Dominions he will discuss this development of the Empire in a large and generous spirit and create a new era of real Imperial development.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to raise a question that I have already raised with the Minister on one or two occasions. I do not think the House can pass this Bill without something being said about it. If we send people across the seas to the Dominions, we should not send them

there and then say that we wash our hands of them. There are at the present time many people who are absolutely stranded in the Dominions as a consequence of death or some other circumstance over which they have had no control. Will not power be taken to ensure that in special cases the Minister can bring people home when they are stranded, helpless and destitute, as a number of cases are at the present time? I have brought cases before the notice of the Minister, and it is absolutely imperative that power should be taken by the Minister for that purpose.

11.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I know that the hon. Member is very interested in that question, and I think, if he will read the report of the discussion which took place on the Committee stage, when he was not able to be present, he will see that I dealt with the question. To put the position in one sentence, I said on that occasion that the whole question is now being considered, with a view to seeing whether some provision can be made. Until that consideration has been completed, I cannot possibly say any more on the subject.

Question put, "That the word now,' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 98.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[11.21 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cary, R. A.
Eckersley, P. T.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Ellis, Sir G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G, J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Channon, H.
Emery, J. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (S'kn'hd)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Apsley, Lord
Caiman, N. C. D.
Errington, E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Assheton, R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Everard, W. L.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Critchley, A.
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crooke, J. S.
Fleming, E. L.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Blindell, Sir J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Furness, S. N.


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Granville, E. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Culverwell, C. T.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bracken, B.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gridle, Sir A. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
De Chair, S. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Doland, G. F.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Donner, P. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Bull, B. B.
Duggan, H. J.
Hannah, I. C.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Butler, R. A.
Dunglass, Lord
Harris, Sir P. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hartington, Marquess of




Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moreing, A. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jonas, Sir Henry
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hepworth, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
 Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Munro, P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Holmes, J. S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Owen, Major G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hopkinson, A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, C. M.
Spens, W. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peake, O.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hunter, T.
Peat, C. U.
Storey, S.


Jackson, Sir H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Petherick, M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Keeling, E. H.
Porritt, R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Procter, Major H. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Kimball, L,




Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rankin, Sir R.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Loftut, P. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Remer, J. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wells, S. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


McKie, J. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Maitland, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Rowlands, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, S. H. M. (Daman)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salt, E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scott, Lord William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Sir George Penny and Mr. James Stuart.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consatt)
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Barr, J.
John, W.
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T,
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bromfield, W.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Brooke, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Burke, W. A.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Cape, T.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Cassells, T.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Cocks, F. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dalton, H.
McGovern, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.



Lords Amendment considered accordingly, and agreed to.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

FACTORIES [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate, with Amendments, the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 929, and other enactments relating to factories, and for purposes connected with the purposes aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenses of the Secretary of State in carrying the said Act into effect.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Abergavenny, which was presented on the 26th day of January and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Motion made, and Question. "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[The Lord Advocate.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.